Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Emily's Cat]

NJ prisons are a great example. They are segregated by sex, and the occasional transgender inmate is evaluated on a case by case basis to determine if it is a net benefit to allow them to override this sex segregation.

A net benefit to whom? Surely it's a benefit for the male who wishes to be housed with females in shared cells and use shared bathing facilities. How do you figure they're assessing that as being a benefit to all of the females who now are forced against their will to share such intimate spaces with a male?

 

[Rolfe]

Perhaps you might consider setting aside your male privilege for a moment, and actually listening to females.

I have certainly used the restroom at a night club to escape from a male who wouldn't take no for an answer, and kept grabbing at my butt. I escaped to a refuge where I was secure in the knowledge that the male would be unlikely to follow me there, and if they did, the other females in the space would have my back as would the owners of the establishment.

I ducked into a bathroom while cross campus one evening to get away from a male who had followed me for a long ways, sped up when I walked faster, and was giving off completely creeptastic vibes.

I encountered a young woman in the Ladies during a party when I was a student. She had been expecting her date to drive her home, but he was pressurising her to go to his home with him. She was afraid to get into his car. I offered her a lift home.

That's the sort of thing that happens in the Ladies.

 

[Rolfe]

IIRC, there was at least one case of a male with a transgender identity in britain who was excused from prison time, because the judge decided that being trans was an extenuating circumstance for why they had thousands and thousands of child torture and porn images.

There have been several. I've seen a range of rationalisations, including that he would have a terrible time in prison if sent there, that it would cause problems deciding which prison to send him to, and that his gender dysphoria was an extenuating circumstance i.e. he'd suffered enough.

 

[Thermal]

This is pretty much the same behavior as when religious people call pro-choice positions "pro-abortion". It's untrue propaganda.

When y'all stop posting every trans weirdo that you have to dig back decades to find pics of, you can earn a name that's more palatable.

You personally don't do it, but many arguing your side do. 'Team Anti Trans' is directed more at them, because it's exactly what they are: not pro-anything, just anti-trans (no, the half assed rebrandings they try aren't remotely accurate).

Your take on this issue (please excuse the oversimplifying) is a general distrust of men. 'Not all men', but enough for you to feel personally threatened by any random one. And there is justification for that, as there is for women sometimes using a restroom as a social 'time-out' base.

And as I've said many times, I sympathize completely with that. I just don't know that it is the final word on the matter. To get there, we should (as skeptics) consult the available data. What data there is shows that the fears you have do not play out. Cis men still stay out of women's rest rooms, and transwomen still occasionally use them. Assaults do not increase. The assumed 'impostor trans' criminals opportunistically taking advantage of this don't materialize.

 

[Thermal]

A net benefit to whom? Surely it's a benefit for the male who wishes to be housed with females in shared cells and use shared bathing facilities. How do you figure they're assessing that as being a benefit to all of the females who now are forced against their will to share such intimate spaces with a male?

It is my understanding that they weigh it entirely on the threat of violence. If they think the transwoman poses no threat to women, but is at great risk of being disproportionately assaulted by men, they consider that.

 

[Emily's Cat]

A couple of interesting paragraphs

For a couple of years, whenever I tried to talk to “outsiders” about what was really going on, the problem was not that they disagreed with me. It was that they thought I was making it up. I’d be told that no one, apart from a handful of totally mad people, thought that biological sex wasn’t real or that children were born in the wrong body. No one thought that male rapists should be in women’s prisons or that male bodies belonged in female sports! No one thought a person should be able to switch genders at random, simply on their say-so! Where had I got such crazy ideas?​

Trans activist demands were so obviously insane that most people’s natural response was to think you were inventing them in order to make trans people look bad (so no wonder trans people hated terfs!). ​

Until this issue arose, I had no idea how many self-styled “good” people will support bad things on the basis that other, less important people can take all the hits. Maybe I was incredibly naïve, but I thought of my political opponents as people who believed different things to me, not people who believed the exact same things but considered themselves much more special and exempt from responsibility than their fellow believers. ​

Argument from incredulity is all over this topic.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I don't know what idea you're responding to here, but I'm confident it is not the one I was trying to convey.

You alluded to racial segregation of the past as if it were somehow relevant and analogous to the current situation.

 

[mumblethrax]

Perhaps you might consider setting aside your male privilege for a moment, and actually listening to females.

I do listen to women, but the trouble is different women tell me different things. For example, most of the women I know hate being referred to as 'females'. You seem to prefer it.

I'm aware that the ladies' room is a place where women can go to get away from a sex pest. I'm also aware that lots of women don't feel safe in the ladies' room, in part because of things like toilet cameras. That is, I don't think they are safe spaces, at least not as I understand the term. There aren't sufficient measures to make them safe spaces. Nobody is at the door, doing ocular pat downs.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It refers to multiple occupancy. It was posted way back, and actually makes intuitive sense: a man can be expected in an unisex bathroom, and a predatory male has access to victims he would not otherwise have. Not so for a cis man in a women's room. He is not expected to be there and sticks out like a sore thumb, alerting everyone around. Zero ability for a predator to be discreet.

And somehow you think that a male with a transgender identity does NOT stick out like a sore thumb? Or are you assuming that no males with transgender identities could possibly be predators, and would never ever exploit their right-by-law to invade female spaces in order to gain access to victims *he* would not otherwise have?

 

[mumblethrax]

You alluded to racial segregation of the past as if it were somehow relevant and analogous to the current situation.

I alluded to them because I was asked about the alternatives for the past 100 years, and not about the current situation. I was noting, in passing, that the bathroom situation in the US has often been a garbage fire over that time.

I don't exactly know why lionking asked me that, so I can't really say much more about it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The ones who identify as transwomen or nonbinary or whatever are allowed. Those who identify as cismales were never actually denied in the first place. Might have mentioned this a few dozen times.

None. That's the point of selfID. You don't need to show your papers for being who you are.

So circling back...

If you say you aren't cis, then you are not cis.

(That's how self-i.d. works.)

There is no argument against this. Whatever the ◊◊◊◊ a male says they are is what is required to be honored in your state. Whether they're "legitimate" or not has nothing to do with it. They don't have to pass, and there's absolutely no means to deny a male entry if they say the magic words.

Correct. And?

Seriously, how many times can you ask the same question, get an answer, ignore the answer, and ask the same question a few pages later?

I'll keep asking you until it actually makes it through your skull and you put two and two together and actually get to four instead of stopping at 2.6.

Nobody can tell if you're lying or not.
Nobody other than you can tell whether your professed identity is true or not.
You are not required to have any sort of documentation as a "real trans" in order to use a female restroom.
Quite literally, YOU THERMAL could walk up to any female restroom in the state of NJ, and say "I'm a transwoman", and nobody has any right at all to challenge you or to deny you entry.

The actual result of this is that any male that takes it into their heads that they want to impose themselves on nonconsenting females can say magic words and the law is on their side.

 

[Emily's Cat]

As I've said many many many before, please google the word 'sardonic'.

Sardonic slurs are still slurs, and I've asked you several times to stop using such abhorrent language.

 

[mumblethrax]

How does that work when the internal perception is in direct and complete opposition to observable reality?

The same way it works when it isn't. The uncontroversial existence of beliefs about the self the relevant point here, not their content.

Candy believes that she is an astronaut can be true even if Candy is an astronaut isn't.

Your silly posturing is supporting the position where someone's internal beliefs are supposed to override observable reality and make everyone else interact with them as if they're the thing they believe they are even when we can see that they absolutely clearly are NOT.

How does pointing out that people do, in fact, have a self-concept (ie, beliefs about themselves, social identities, a self-image) support any of that? It's a descriptive statement, not a normative one.

 

[theprestige]

The careful reader will note that I was not talking about gender identity at all, there.

You didn't need to mention it explicitly. The legitimacy of sense of self as a basis for overriding sex segregation is a central point of debate in this thread. When you bring up sense of self, this is the context.

 

[Thermal]

And somehow you think that a male with a transgender identity does NOT stick out like a sore thumb?

Sure, many of them. So? Thr more you know, the better off you are.

Or are you assuming that no males with transgender identities could possibly be predators, and would never ever exploit their right-by-law to invade female spaces in order to gain access to victims *he* would not otherwise have?

They might. They do so with or without permission on the door to enter. So does a cis attacker. We've been over this many times.

 

[mumblethrax]

You didn't need to mention it explicitly. The legitimacy of sense of self as a basis for overriding sex segregation is a central point of debate in this thread. When you bring up sense of self, this is the context.

I didn't bring up sense of self.

A perfectly reasonable thing to say would be "Our sense of self should not override sex segregation." A not at all reasonable thing to say is "We do not have a sense of self."

Which is why I noted that it was curious that someone had done the latter, and not the former.

 

[Thermal]

There is no argument against this.

Yes there is. You are just entranced with the argument. it falls flat for many of us.

I'll keep asking you until it actually makes it through your skull and you put two and two together and actually get to four instead of stopping at 2.6.

I got it the first hundred times. Everyone, on both sides of the debate (and those of us somewhere in between) gets it and considers it. It's not fractionally the silver bullet you imagine it to be.

Just for fun: what is the scenario you imagine where you "have to tell"? Assume for the moment you are not the Penis Police, checking everyone's papers. Further assume there is no cop hanging around nearby. You see someone you believe to be a threat to you in the women's restroom. What do you do? How do you confront this threat in a way that works to your advantage? How do you "tell"?

The actual result of this is that any male that takes it into their heads that they want to impose themselves on nonconsenting females can say magic words and the law is on their side.

That's the fun part: it's not the actual result that you guys keep fear mongering. The actual result we see is things go on as before, with no discernable difference.

 

[Thermal]

Sardonic slurs are still slurs, and I've asked you several times to stop using such abhorrent language.

Lol, I've asked many here to stop expressing their abhorrent thoughts, and naked revulsion to trans people. Ain't stopping them.

'Tranny', btw, is how the transwoman I have spoken about often refers to herself, kind of like a white guy calling himself whitey. It's only a slur in intent.When it's used by.... others... in this thread, it's not playful or sardonic. Shall we discuss context?

 

[Ziggurat]

No. Everyone is permitted to use unisex bathrooms. That's not the case with gender-segregated bathrooms.

It is if you adopt self-ID.

 

[mumblethrax]

It is if you adopt self-ID.

No, it isn't.