Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Pixel42]

I'm talking about bathrooms, and they aren't given priority. They're given equal access.

They are given a right - the right not to have to share toilet facilities with males - the granting of which automatically removes that exact same right from actual females. Their discomfort when sharing facilities with (other) males is being deemed more important than, and given priority over, the discomfort of the females who are now required to share facilities with males.

 

[mumblethrax]

They are given a right - the right not to have to share toilet facilities with males - the granting of which automatically removes that exact same right from actual females.

No they aren't. If there are two transwomen in the ladies', then each of them is sharing the facilities with a male, and no rights violation has occurred.

The only right they've been granted is a right to non-discrimination on the basis of gender identity in public accommodations, and it's probably better to think of that in terms of discrimination law, rather than rights.

 

[lionking]

Because they have presented no evidence.

No, you have ignored the massive amount of evidence posted in this thread.

Also the “source” you quote is 6 years old and restricted to one state of the US. It proves exactly nothing. How many reports of women’s fear and anxiety are you prepared to ignore for the sake of selfish men who self identify (some honestly, many not) as women?

 

[lionking]

No they aren't. If there are two transwomen in the ladies', then each of them is sharing the facilities with a male, and no rights violation has occurred.

The only right they've been granted is a right to non-discrimination on the basis of gender identity in public accommodations, and it's probably better to think of that in terms of discrimination law, rather than rights.

And nations around the world, including the UK, are changing the ridiculous “discrimination” laws when it comes to women’s safe places, sports, prisons etc etc.

Need it be repeated that nobody here supports discrimination of transgender people when it comes to housing, employment and so on?

 

[mumblethrax]

No, you have ignored the massive amount of evidence posted in this thread.

No, I haven't. I haven't read most of this thread, or its predecessors. If someone would like to present some evidence, I'm open to it.

Also the “source” you quote is 6 years old and restricted to one state of the US. It proves exactly nothing. How many reports of women’s fear and anxiety are you prepared to ignore for the sake of selfish men who self identify (some honestly, many not) as women?

Why does the fact that it's six years old matter? That's an odd thing to complain about. And there are plenty of other studies I can point to.

 

[Pixel42]

Because they have presented no evidence.

Where is the evidence of any issue resulting from trans identifying males using the sex segregated facilities allocated for their sex rather than their self identified gender which would justify abolishing female only facilities?

 

[mumblethrax]

And nations around the world, including the UK, are changing the ridiculous “discrimination” laws when it comes to women’s safe places, sports, prisons etc etc.

Need it be repeated that nobody here supports discrimination of transgender people when it comes to housing, employment and so on?

Again--I'm talking about public bathrooms. Whether or not nations around the world are changing their discrimination laws is immaterial to determining whether gender identity non-discrimination laws increase risks for women.

 

[Pixel42]

No they aren't. If there are two transwomen in the ladies', then each of them is sharing the facilities with a male, and no rights violation has occurred.

The right of the females in that facility to not have to share it with males has been violated.

The only right they've been granted is a right to non-discrimination on the basis of gender identity in public accommodations, and it's probably better to think of that in terms of discrimination law, rather than rights.

Public accommodations discriminate on the basis of sex, not gender identity, for very good reasons which have not magically disappeared because of the thoughts in the heads of a tiny percentage of males.

 

[lionking]

Again--I'm talking about public bathrooms. Whether or not nations around the world are changing their discrimination laws is immaterial to determining whether gender identity non-discrimination laws increase risks for women.

I know you are talking about public bathrooms. Why do you think the US experience (and flimsy “evidence”) is superior to that of the UK and other European nations backing away from self ID allowing access to women’s toilets and change rooms?

Do you support self ID as valid criteria? If so, why?

 

[mumblethrax]

Where is the evidence of any issue resulting from trans identifying males using the sex segregated facilities allocated for their sex rather than their self identified gender which would justify abolishing female only facilities?

I'm not sure why you're fixated on trans women here. There are obviously risks involved for trans men, too, as well as cis men and women who happen to not look enough like men and women for the tastes of busybodies empowered by restrictive legislation.

But here's some evidence: https://publications.aap.org/pediat...ool-Restroom-and-Locker-Room-Restrictions-and

Public accommodations discriminate on the basis of sex, not gender identity, for very good reasons which have not magically disappeared because of the thoughts in the heads of a tiny percentage of males.

If this were true, you'd think it would be easier to come up with evidence in support of those very good reasons.

 

[lionking]

I'm not sure why you're fixated on trans women here.

For ◊◊◊◊◊ sake, look at the title of this thread.

 

[mumblethrax]

I know you are talking about public bathrooms. Why do you think the US experience (and flimsy “evidence”) is superior to that of the UK and other European nations backing away from self ID allowing access to women’s toilets and change rooms?

I don't think the US experience is "superior". What an odd thing to say.

Do you support self ID as valid criteria? If so, why?

For bathrooms? Yes. Because there's no practical alternative.

 

[mumblethrax]

For ◊◊◊◊◊ sake, look at the title of this thread.

The title of the thread doesn't mean that trans men don't matter. Particularly to people who consider them women.

 

[lionking]

For bathrooms? Yes. Because there's no practical alternative.

What was the practical alternative for the past century or so?

Also explain how self ID is somehow magically acceptable for toilets, but not (presumedly) for change rooms, sports and prisons? And don’t say it’s because toilets are trivial.

 

[Pixel42]

I'm not sure why you're fixated on trans women here.

Because sex segregated spaces, services, sports leagues etc were established because of the biological differences between males and females which overwhelmingly disadvantage females.

 

[Rolfe]

Well. Lynsay Watson seems like a really completely stable individual...

I've read bits and piece of tribunal tweets for Linehan's hearing, and it's been quite a bit of an own-goal for the litigants. But Watson here is just beyond nutso.

He's been on wrong-sex hormones for a very long time. (He's almost sixty.) I don't think that's very good for the brain. Although it does appear that he wasn't particularly stable to begin with.

 

[mumblethrax]

What was the practical alternative for the past century or so?

Depends on where you lived, I suppose. I don't think the bathroom situation in the Jim Crow south was particularly good.

Also explain how self ID is somehow magically acceptable for toilets, but not (presumedly) for change rooms, sports and prisons? And don’t say it’s because toilets are trivial.

Because it's unrealistic to expect you can police them humanely, professionally and effectively.

Because sex segregated spaces, services, sports leagues etc were established because of the biological differences between males and females which overwhelmingly disadvantage females.

Segregated bathrooms were not established due to biological differences between men and women, and this doesn't actually answer the question about why we should not attend to the concerns of trans men and cis men and women who are likely to be harassed.

 

[smartcooky]

I omitted it because it's irrelevant.

The are facts, and those facts ARE relevant to this issue

Once you know that gender identity non-discrimination law don't, in practice, increase rates of sexual assaults in public bathrooms, the relative propensity for violence of transwoman is neither here nor there.]

Except that we have no other evidence of this than a single, poorly-executed study by three people with a conflict of interest.

You're favoring the hypothesis over the evidence that disconfirms the hypothesis.

No, I'm favouring hard factual evidence over a dubious study

This is braindead.

In your opinion. My opinion differs

As an obvious counterexample, if you point out that coed prisons are not safe spaces, it does not follow that you are saying "If you commit a crime and are sent to that prison, you are asking for it."

Except that when the first party commit a crime, the criminal action is taken by that first party - the criminal themselves - so victim blaming the first party is fair and reasonable.

However, when the first party is the victim of a crime, the criminal action is taken by the second party - so blaming the first party, the victim, is unreasonable... actually its a vile, scummy thing to do. When you tell a someone NOT to go into a public toilet because they might be attacked, you are in effect telling them they are asking for it.

Identification of danger is not equivalent to apportioning blame.

In your opinion. My opinion differs from yours

You didn't show me that.

Yes I did, and you just told on yourself. That fact that you think you weren't shown it proves that you dismissed the linked evidence without reading it. You've been rumbled.

No, you are desperately throwing ◊◊◊◊ at the wall because you lack confidence in your own arguments.

I am 100% confident in my arguments because they are backed up by solid, irrefutable facts.

 

[smartcooky]

No, you have ignored the massive amount of evidence posted in this thread.

Also the “source” you quote is 6 years old and restricted to one state of the US.

And even worse, its California FFS, one of the most gender ideology captured states in the union.

It proves exactly nothing.

100% correct.

How many reports of women’s fear and anxiety are you prepared to ignore for the sake of selfish men who self identify (some honestly, many not) as women?

All of them I'd say. Typical profile of a trans-ally
1. Male
2. Don't give a flying ◊◊◊◊ about women or their rights

 

[mumblethrax]

Except that we have no other evidence of this than a single, poorly-executed study by three people with a conflict of interest.

You have not identified any flaw in the methodology of this study, nor have you identified a conflict of interest, let alone a massive one.

This is standard agenda-driven crackpot stuff. You reject the research because it disagrees with your predetermined conclusions.

Except that when the first party commit a crime, the criminal action is taken by that first party - the criminal themselves - so victim blaming the first party is fair and reasonable.

No, it's not fair to blame a prisoner for the fact that they get assaulted in prison.

However, when the first party is the victim of a crime, the criminal action is taken by the second party - so blaming the first party, the victim, is unreasonable... actually its a vile, scummy thing to do. When you tell a someone NOT to go into a public toilet because they might be attacked, you are in effect telling them they are asking for it.

No. A warning of imminent danger is not "in effect" telling someone they are to blame if they are victimized. A crucial part of "they were asking for it" statements--actually saying something like "they were asking for it."

If a kindly old man see a woman walking down the street and says "Hey, there are some kids up ahead who are up to no good. Just so you know," he is in no way victim blaming.

In your opinion. My opinion differs from yours

Your opinion isn't reasonable.

Yes I did, and you just told on yourself. That fact that you think you weren't shown it proves that you dismissed the linked evidence without reading it. You've been rumbled.

No, you didn't. I know what you wrote. There's an obvious confounding factor that you're ignoring. The sample size also isn't large enough for a reasonable level of confidence. You can't generalize from this population.

I am 100% confident in my arguments because they are backed up by solid, irrefutable facts.

No, they aren't.