Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Emily's Cat]

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.

They also discount entirely how exhibitionism and voyeurism affect all of the females on whom they're forcing a male.

 

[Thermal]

They also discount entirely how exhibitionism and voyeurism affect all of the females on whom they're forcing a male.

I don't know that they do. You have some evidence, I assume?

 

[Ziggurat]

No, it isn't.

It's unisex with extra steps. But it's still unisex.

Perhaps you are confused about what "self ID" means. Thermal was.

 

[Thermal]

It's unisex with extra steps. But it's still unisex.

Perhaps you are confused about what "self ID" means. Thermal was.

"You are confused".

Eta: according to you, the public restrooms in my beloved Garden State are unisex. They seem to me to be entirely male and female, like they've always been, with a once in a blue moon non conformist occasionally using the opposite one. Are you saying half the men I see in the men's room are actually women? And half the women my wife and kids see are male? Damn, the alternate realities that are brought to my attention in this thread.

 

[mumblethrax]

It's unisex with extra steps. But it's still unisex.

No, it isn't. There are clear differences.

Perhaps you are confused about what "self ID" means. Thermal was.

It's more that I'm not confused about what permitted means.

 

[Ziggurat]

No, it isn't. There are clear differences.

Only the extra steps. Which don't really matter.

"You are confused".

You were. You thought "self ID" referred to something other than the public policy that the TRA's want. But everyone except you knows that "self ID" refers to their preferred public policy. And that's what I mean by it when I use the term. Since you thought I meant something other than what I meant, you were indeed confused. Which was excusable before I explained what I meant, but not after.

 

[d4m10n]

Whether they're "legitimate" or not has nothing to do with it.

Scare quotes used correctly for once.

No one here has any way of saying whether any given identity claim is legitimate if that claim is entirely about an ill-defined set of conditions within someone's mind. Am I legitimately a fan of the Michigan Wolverines or the Oklahoma Sooners? You have no way to tell, beyond raiding my closet and noticing that I've got slightly fewer hats and t-shirts supporting the more venerable program.

I don't think "inner sense of self on the gender scale" unpacks any less messily than fandom does; from the outside view it comes down to a set of behaviors we tend to associate with people we've assigned to one social group or another, most of which we've deliberately made optional in the last few decades.

 

[mumblethrax]

Only the extra steps. Which don't really matter.

They do matter. There are personal and social consequences if I walk into the ladies' room. There are none if I use the gender-neutral toilet.

The signs on the door govern behavior. Therefore, they matter.

 

[Ziggurat]

They do matter. There are personal and social consequences if I walk into the ladies' room.

Such as?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Actually, I do NOT prefer it, I actually find it horribly insulting. But I was placed in a position where I had to make a choice of either using the term "women" and having that word include male human beings, or using the term "female humans" and excluding males where I feel it's appropriate to do so. When I placed in a position where certain terms were deemed to refer to gender identity rather than sex, I chose to be explicit in referring to sex. Outside of this forum, I talk like a normal person.

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.

Pshah. None of them are completely safe spaces. But in a whole lot of situations, they're safer spaces.

At the end of the day, these are spaces where we are partially or completely unclothed. It's entirely reasonable for us to expect that we won't be exposed to strange males while in such a vulnerable state, and it's entirely reasonable for us to expect that we won't have strange males exposing themselves to us either.

At the end of the day, that's what this is about: consent and boundaries. Most female humans wish to retain the expectation that strange males won't be around without our consent when our bare asses are hanging out in one form or another. We also wish to retain the expectation that we're not going to be subjected to the bare ass of a strange male against our will.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

It's a silly allusion. "So hey, back in the day, white folks were ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ to black folks, and wouldn't share bathrooms... therefore people with dicks and balls should totally be given the right to show off their junk to nonconsenting female humans as long as those testiculators say the magic phrase first!"

Oversimplification of your position? Assuredly. Accurate rendition of the outcome? Definitely.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Okay, I think we're making progress. Eddie Izzard believes they are a woman, but Eddie Izzard is 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.

You're overgeneralizing in an effort to support a very specific instance. Yes, everyone has a concept of self. That doesn't, however, mean that everyone has a gender identity. If that were the case, then you could also say that everyone has a soul because some people view the concept of a soul as an important aspect of their self-identity.

 

[mumblethrax]

Such as?

What happens if I start using the women's bathroom at work? Do you think I would not be treated with any suspicion? That I might lose a few friends over this?

Thinking about going into the women's room is pretty anxiety-inducing. Actually doing would probably give me a panic attack.

Plus, there's a non-negligible chance it would get my ass beat.

More than enough to keep me in line, even if I had any desire to do it. And seemingly true for virtually everyone else who isn't permitted in there, except those with criminal intent, who probably don't care about the magic forcefield. Like I said, it governs behavior.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

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.

Yes, we've been over it. And you still seem to tap-dance around it and elide making the connection.

Think on this: A robber will enter the home of a place they wish to rob with or without a locked door, and so will a home invader intent on murdering the occupants. This is a true statement. It's just as true as you pointing out that a male with or without a transgender identity could enter the female restroom and attack someone.

Here's the difference though. You're taking the debate position that males with a transgender identity should be given legal right to enter female restrooms, even though giving them that right also makes it easier for a male (regardless of their identity) to commit offenses against females.

Would you also argue that robbers who only want to take jewelry should be given the legal right to enter your home, and you should be expected to leave your door unlocked, even though giving jewel robbers that right also makes it easier for home invaders to come in and murder your whole family?

 

[mumblethrax]

Actually, I do NOT prefer it, I actually find it horribly insulting. But I was placed in a position where I had to make a choice of either using the term "women" and having that word include male human beings, or using the term "female humans" and excluding males where I feel it's appropriate to do so.

We all know what you mean by 'women'. Having a forum idiolect is weird and performative, particularly if you (and I) find it distasteful.

None of them are completely safe spaces. But in a whole lot of situations, they're safer spaces.

I don't really care to argue this to death. I'm just pointing out that very little goes into ensuring that these are safe spaces.

At the end of the day, these are spaces where we are partially or completely unclothed. It's entirely reasonable for us to expect that we won't be exposed to strange males while in such a vulnerable state, and it's entirely reasonable for us to expect that we won't have strange males exposing themselves to us either.

Sure, but peering into a stall or exposing yourself are both criminal acts. So that expectation seems to be addressed to the degree it can be.

At the end of the day, that's what this is about: consent and boundaries. Most female humans wish to retain the expectation that strange males won't be around without our consent when our bare asses are hanging out in one form or another. We also wish to retain the expectation that we're not going to be subjected to the bare ass of a strange male against our will.

I think there are empirical problems with this idea. Like, it's hard to square with the significantly greater support expressed by women for permitting
transwomen in the ladies' room. Even after the erosion of support in recent years.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

It's you, buddy. YOU keep arguing that "self-id" doesn't mean that any male can just declare themselves to be trans and therefore gain access to female intimate spaces. But when YOU walk through it, there's no way at all to keep out males of any sort - all they have to do is say that they're trans. There's literally no way to determine who is and who is not trans. Such a way does not exist. Therefore, when you give males who declare themselves to be transgender the *right* to enter female intimate spaces, you are giving ANY MALE WHO WANTS TO the exact same right.

Because ANY male at all who says they're trans is, by definition trans.

But please, go on and once again tell us that we're all wrong, and that it only applies to males with transgender identities again. Even though nobody at all can tell whether or not someone has a transgender identity other than them saying words out loud. It's ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ magic, pal.

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"?

Yell loudly for help, with the reasonable expectation that someone is going to show up and have my back. The reasonable expectation that the obvious male can't just say the magic words "oh, I'm trans" and then suddenly I get treated like I'm the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊.

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.

You mean other than the differences that have been shared with you as personal experiences, and the ones that you've rejected as "not real trans so it doesn't count"?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

The abhorrent thought that males, regardless of how they identify, should stay out of female-only intimate spaces? The abhorrent thought that some males, regardless of how they identify, have sexual paraphilias that represent an increased risk of offending to others? The abhorrent thought that cross-dressing males have a well documented higher tendency to sexually offend, and that it's a known correlate with voyeurism, exhibitionism, and rape, as well as significantly over-represented among serial killers?

'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?

Great. Do you also know a black person who refers to themselves with the n-word, and therefore think it's okay for you to refer to black people in general in the same way?

 

[Emily's Cat]

No, it isn't.

So only females will be allowed in the female bathroom?

Before I express my approval, can you please tell us all what you think the term "female" means?

 

[Ziggurat]

What happens if I start using the women's bathroom at work? Do you think I would not be treated with any suspicion? That I might lose a few friends over this?

You might. But nobody can stop you, if self ID is the controlling policy. Which makes it unisex, with extra steps.

Thinking about going into the women's room is pretty anxiety-inducing.

Maybe for you. Some people get anxious about going into any public bathroom. So what?

Plus, there's a non-negligible chance it would get my ass beat.

If self-ID is the controlling policy, anyone doing that would get fired and criminally charged.

Few people are willing to do that, so I don't really believe you about your chances.

 

[Emily's Cat]

"You are confused".

Eta: according to you, the public restrooms in my beloved Garden State are unisex.

They are. At this point, it's nothing more than fiction to pretend they aren't. They're not evenly mixed, only because most males respect that most females don't want them in their restrooms, and most females respect that most males don't want them in their restrooms. But legally, they're all unisex now.

They seem to me to be entirely male and female, like they've always been, with a once in a blue moon non conformist occasionally using the opposite one.

So they're entirely male except for the females that use them... and entirely female except for the males that use them. Kind of sounds like they might be unisex, hmm?

Are you saying half the men I see in the men's room are actually women? And half the women my wife and kids see are male? Damn, the alternate realities that are brought to my attention in this thread.

Half no. Because MOST PEOPLE respect sex-based boundaries and dignity, and aren't so arrogant that they place their own happy feelings above the comfort and dignity of everyone else.