Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[smartcooky]

Segregated bathrooms were not established due to biological differences between men and women

Not quite right, it was part of the reason. It was also done to protect them in public life

Sexism in the “Bathroom Debates”: How Bathrooms Really Became Separated by Sex | Yale Law & Policy Review

yalelawandpolicy.org

Generally speaking, as public policy, the practice was rooted primarily in safety and privacy concerns, although patriarchal norms affected it. Indeed, this Article argues that nineteenth century laws mandating sex‐separation in factories were among the earliest anti‐sexual harassment laws in the nation. These laws fell short in the effort, however, because they lacked supporting legal structures, because the problems of sexual assault and sexual harassment proved enduring, especially for the female‐bodied, and because they did not sufficiently consider the safety of male‐bodied persons who were similarly vulnerable to assault and harassment.​

​

The Article concludes that the alternative bathroom histories fail. As they propose an explanation of sex‐separation that advances the interests of some sexual minorities, they offer a narrative that oppresses women and the female‐bodied. They ignore the stories of women’s lives and, in particular, their struggles with sexual assault and sexual harassment. They similarly ignore the struggles of the poor for safe intimate spaces. ​

​

Women and others must push back on approaches that contort women’s history, for they are rooted in sexism and patriarchy, even when they may be intended to advance the freedom of other groups.​

 

[mumblethrax]

Not quite right, it was part of the reason. It was also done to protect them in public life

Nothing in this article supports the contention that segregated bathrooms were established due to biological differences between men and women.

 

[smartcooky]

You have not identified any flaw in the methodology of this study,

@lionking has... its a single study in one state. There a 50 states in the US and 195+ countries in the world. As you stated earlier "The sample size also isn't large enough for a reasonable level of confidence. You can't generalize from this population."

nor have you identified a conflict of interest, let alone a massive one.

I have, you're just pretenting its not relevant

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

I disgaree with it because the study is flawed and the sources have a clear and obvious conflict of interest

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

Congratulations - you just flipped your own script.

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."

We obviously have differing and completely irreconcilable opinions.

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.

But you will be if he ignored you and gets attacked, and you tell him "I told you so" - and you would not be able to resist.

Your opinion isn't reasonable.

Your opinion isn't reasonable... see how that works?

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.

Its not a sample.. its the whole population.

No, they aren't.

Yes they are.
Facts don't care about your opinions

I have posted my position on this issue previously. I regard any man, including any pretending they are not a man, who violates any boundary of any woman or girl in any place at any time against her consent, to be a predator and they need to be treated as such, and I regard any man who disagrees with this position to be a misgynist.

I will never, ever back away from this position.

 

[mumblethrax]

@lionking has... its a single study in one state. There a 50 states in the US and 195+ countries in the world

This is not a flaw, and imagining that it is is scientifically illiterate.

I have, you're just pretenting its not relevant

No, you haven't.

I disgaree with it because the study is flawed and the sources have a clear and obvious conflict of interest

You have not identified a flaw or a conflict of interest.

Congratulations - you just flipped your own script.

No, I haven't. This is exactly what I said earlier.

We obviously have differing and completely irreconcilable opinions.

Yes. And yours is unreasonable.

But you will be if he ignored you and gets attacked, and you tell him "I told you so" - and you would not be able to resist.

She. I was talking about a woman.

This is a tacit admission that it's true that identifying danger does not entail victim blaming, that some actual victim blaming would be necessary to make it so, along with further dishonest imputation.

Your opinion isn't reasonable... see how that works?

It doesn't work, because it isn't correct.

Its not a sample.. its the whole population.

It's the whole population of prisoners. If you wish to generalize to the population of transwomen, which is what you attempted, it is a sample. And a sample that is too small, with obvious confounders.

I have posted my position on this issue previously. I regard any man, including any pretending they are not a man, who violates any boundary of any woman or girl in any place at any time against her consent, to be a predator and they need to be treated as such, and I regard any man who disagreess with this position to be a misgynist.

This is far too vague, because you are not defining or identifying what this "boundary" is, or how it is justified.

If her boundary is "No man may be in this coed classroom with me," it would not be reasonable to conclude that a man who is taking that class and enters the classroom without her consent is a predator, nor anyone who says he ought to be able to do so a misogynist.

I'm afraid you'll have to put more work into this position.

 

[smartcooky]

This is not a flaw, and imagining that it is is scientifically illiterate.


No, you haven't.


You have not identified a flaw or a conflict of interest.


No, I haven't. This is exactly what I said earlier.


Yes. And yours is unreasonable.


She. I was talking about a woman.

This is a tacit admission that it's true that identifying danger does not entail victim blaming, that some actual victim blaming would be necessary to make it so, along with further dishonest imputation.


It doesn't work, because it isn't correct.


It's the whole population of prisoners. If you wish to generalize to the population of transwomen, which is what you attempted, it is a sample. And a sample that is too small, with obvious confounders.

Its obvious to me that you are just parroting the trans-ally position, and that puts us irreconcilably at polar opposite sides of this issue. I will be wasting no further time trying to argue down your brick wall of dogma

This is far to vague, because you are not defining or identifying what this "boundary" is, or how it is justified.

"Any boundary" - that is all the definition that is necessary

If her boundary is "No man may be in this coed classroom with me," it would not be reasonable to conclude that a man who is taking that class and enters the classroom without her consent is a predator, nor anyone who says he ought to be able to do so a misogynist.

That is not a boundary

I'm afraid you'll have to put more work into this position.

No, I won't have to do any such thing.

 

[Pixel42]

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

It's hard to see an argument like "trans identifying males might be in danger from non trans males in male only toilets so let's give them access to female only toilets, where they are 2.5 times more likely to be a danger to the females than (still theoretically excluded but in practice impossible to exclude) non trans males" as anything other than pure misogyny.

Male on male violence is not women's problem to solve, and certainly does not justify the abolition of female only spaces.

 

[mumblethrax]

Its obvious to me that you are just parroting the trans-ally position, and that puts us irreconcilably at polar opposite sides of this issue. I will be wasting no further time trying to argue down your brick wall of dogma

This isn't true.

"Any boundary" - that is all the definition that is necessary

No, you'll need to convey what you mean by boundary.

That is not a boundary

Yes, it is. It's not a good a reasonable one, but then you did say any boundary.

No, I won't have to do any such thing.

You will, if you wish to articulate a reasonable position.

 

[mumblethrax]

It's hard to see an argument like "trans identifying males might be in danger from non trans males in male only toilets so let's give them access to female only toilets, where they are 2.5 times more likely to be a danger to the females than (still theoretically excluded but in practice impossible to exclude) non trans males" as anything other than pure misogyny.

You are well aware that this is not the argument.

Male on male violence is not women's problem to solve, and certainly does not justify the abolition of female only spaces.

This is a tribalistic account of moral responsibility and should be rejected on those grounds. Even if it were true, you'd be responsible for solving the problem of violence against trans men on this account, which you have articulated no plan for (unless you abdicate responsibility for handling female on female violence, as well).

 

[smartcooky]

You are well aware that this is not the argument.


This is a tribalistic account of moral responsibility and should be rejected on those grounds. Even if it were true, you'd be responsible for solving the problem of violence against trans men on this account, which you have articulated no plan for (unless you abdicate responsibility for handling female on female violence, as well).

As I said, you are just parroting trans-ally dogma.

 

[mumblethrax]

As I said, you are just parroting trans-ally dogma.

If this is true, you ought to be able to point out the dogma I'm parroting.

If you can't, you'll have to concede that it isn't true.

 

[smartcooky]

If this is true, you ought to be able to point out the dogma I'm parroting.

If you can't, you'll have to concede that it isn't true.

All of what you just posted.

 

[mumblethrax]

All of what you just posted.

You're just re-asserting the claim, not justifying it.

 

[smartcooky]

You're just re-asserting the claim, not justifying it.

Yup. I don't need waste any more time justifying my opinion to you, because it is clear you will just reject anything that doesn't fit with your predetermined conclusions.

 

[mumblethrax]

Yup. I don't need waste any more time justifying my opinion to you, because it is clear you will just reject anything that doesn't fit with your predetermined conclusions.

I'll happily accept evidence that I'm parroting trans ally dogma, if you can find the dogma I'm parroting. So...where is it?

The thing is...I know that no such evidence exists, because I happen to know that I'm not parroting trans ally dogma.

 

[lionking]

The thing is...I know that no such evidence exists, because I happen to know that I'm not parroting trans ally dogma.

Are you objecting to the word parroting? Because you are repeating it.

 

[Manger Douse]

It's the whole population of prisoners. If you wish to generalize to the population of transwomen, which is what you attempted, it is a sample. And a sample that is too small, with obvious confounders.

Where do you think the prisoners come from if not the general population of transwomen?

Do you deny that the #1 reason for a transwoman to be in prison is a sex offence and they are way, way in the lead?

 

[mumblethrax]

Where do you think the prisoners come from if not the general population of transwomen?

Of course they come from the general population. This is not sufficient to establish that they are representative of the general population, because they are not a random sample. There's an obvious selection bias involved.

Do you deny that the #1 reason for a transwoman to be in prison is a sex offence and they are way, way in the lead?

I would need evidence for that--it was not the statistic presented.

 

[Manger Douse]

Of course they come from the general population. This is not sufficient to establish that they are representative of the general population, because they are not a random sample. There's a obvious selection bias involved.

The men and women in that study are also not a random sample so we are comparing apples with apples

I would need evidence for that--it was not the statistic presented.

The evidence presented shows that 60% of transwomen prisoners are there for sexual offences. That shows that the #1 reason for a transwoman to be in prison is sexual offences

 

[smartcooky]

I'll happily accept evidence that I'm parroting trans ally dogma, if you can find the dogma I'm parroting. So...where is it?

You say that, but then as you did earlier, you won't. I don't trust you, so I'm not wasting time trying. These replies are the only ones you get from now on

The thing is...I know that no such evidence exists

Oh, I'm sure you think that

because I happen to know that I'm not parroting trans ally dogma.

Not biting, sorry. You've used up all the slack.

 

[smartcooky]

Are you objecting to the word parroting? Because you are repeating it.

Indeed - one could almost say he's parroting parroting!