Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Thermal]

It's the percentage of the total male population that are pervs that's the problem.

That changes nothing about my criticism of the percentages.

The fact that almost all women have experienced some kind of unwanted sexual attention should give you an idea of how high that percentage is. Many women and girls can't even walk past a building site without being perved on. All most pervs seem to require is the opportunity, and a reasonable chance of getting away with it. Self ID gives them both.

Ok. So what does the data tell us about your hypothesized fear mongering? It's been mentioned several times. Nice formal studies and everything.

You guys keep warning us about how inevitable it is. I live in such a state, that has been open doors for years. Why do you suppose there are no reported instances of this increased perving? Not even informal ones on twitter. Why?

Because you guys think like imaginary bad guys, not like real ones. Real ones get no benefit here. If they take one step across that unlocked restroom door line, all eyes are on them. They have no advantage or opportunity. They have actually thrown a spotlight on themselves and their behavior, and it doesn't suit their ends.

 

[Thermal]

You say he's not a transwoman, but again, what exactly is the standard here? If you appeal to Potter Stewart again, I will take that as an admission that you don't actually have a standard. And without a standard, saying that Bryson isn't trans is merely special pleading.

Already answered, please consult your notes. Rinse and repeat is getting really dull.

Ah. Now so much of this makes sense. Now I get where your hostility to the pushback against trans activism comes from.

Again, you forgot to read the posts. I get there are a lot of them, but I have repeated this many times: I have only developed hostility to the anti-trans crew from very recently engaging in this thread. I was about 95% on your side at the start, with a small caveat to try to provide some window for sincere transwomen, as difficult as that is, even conceptually. I am not arguing pro-trans here; I am arguing against the revolting and/or foolish arguments presented by our anti-transers.

Your child isn't actually non-binary. They are merely non-conforming.

Your psychoanalytic evaluation gleaned from one sentence posted by the subject's father is... something.

 

[theprestige]

Much as I disagree with @Thermal about so much in this debate, I don't see a real problem with him using the term "sex change surgery". Yes, the term is a misnomer, but it's a decades-long established misnomer, he didn't come up with it. I'd prefer some other more accurate term (my personal favorite is "sex denial surgery"), but there isn't a generally accepted one yet. I will fault him for a lot, but not for using what was once standard terminology.

While this might seem reasonable at first glance, Thermal has previously argued that common usage has transformed restrooms from sex segregated spaces into gender segregated spaces, therefore depriving him (and us) of the option of simply upholding sex segregation as a solution there. I'm not inclined to open the door to similar nonsense from him regarding trans-affirming medicine.

 

[theprestige]

I remember people saying this about keeping the gays out; it wasn't particularly persuasive at the time.

Not everyone needs to be deployable at all times; it's okay for female soldiers to become pregnant, for example. That aside, if the only accommodation an individual requires is a bottle of pills

That's not all a trans-affirming soldier requires, though. They also require preferred pronouns, and the entitlement to override sex segregation whenever they want, for example.

Further, the "bottle of pills" and the other things aren't there to put their symptoms into remission. They're there to enable - and likely exacerbate - those symptoms.

 

[Ziggurat]

Already answered, please consult your notes.

Not with anything sensible.

Your psychoanalytic evaluation gleaned from one sentence posted by the subject's father is... something.

It's not a psychoanalytic evaluation. It's merely an objective fact. "Nonbinary" doesn't mean anything. Nobody is "nonbinary". Lots of people are nonconforming.

 

[theprestige]

I have asked my closer fam about that specifically, and they all say 'whatever'. One of my whelps claims to be on the nonbinary spectrum (but has strictly hetero long term monogomous relationships so i don't quite get it)

Non-binary sexuality is distinct from and unrelated to non-binary gender expression. Stop conflating the two, and you'll start to get where your child is actually at in each case.

Also, everyone is on the non-binary gender expression spectrum. Because the social construct of gender expression is indeed a spectrum. We're all making conscious or subconscious choices about how we express ourselves on that spectrum. (For example, my wardrobe is largely unisex, with some "masc" items, but I make no effort to feminize my masculine physical traits, but I am growing out the hair on my head. Spectrum!)

Maybe your child means (or thinks they mean) they're on a non-binary gender identity spectrum. That might take some unpacking.

(Also, regarding your followup complaint to Ziggurat, you gave us this one sentence like we were supposed to make something of it. Don't come crying if we make something based on what you gave us, rather than based on everything you chose to leave out. Conversely, if you don't want us to make something of your situation, don't bring up your situation.)

 

[Thermal]

Non-binary sexuality is distinct from and unrelated to non-binary gender expression. Stop conflating the two, and you'll start to get where your child is actually at in each case.

Well your cohort just assured me that nonbinary doesn't even exist, so maybe you guys are the ones that need to huddle up and get your stories straight?

Also, everyone is on the non-binary gender expression spectrum.

Disagreed. Everybody is on the binary gender expression spectrum.

(Also, regarding your followup complaint to Ziggurat, you gave us this one sentence like we were supposed to make something of it. Don't come crying if we make something based on what you gave us, rather than based on everything you chose to leave out.

You didn't need to make anything out of it, and certainly had no basis to run wild with your unique theories.

Conversely, if you don't want us to make something of your situation, don't bring up your situation.)

Context sometimes helps. That doesn't make you guys abstract therapists, and if you want to play at that, the most basic starting point would be to acquire substantially more information.

 

[Aber]

Right. Zig told me what "women were telling me", and I pointed out that the vast majority of women (who tell me stuff) were telling me something quite different.

And I'm telling you that according to the data you are likely to be in a bubble.

 

[Thermal]

And I'm telling you that according to the data you are likely to be in a bubble.

It's hardly news that more liberal people tend to be pro-trans, and conservative anti-trans, and I am well aware of the kind of people I am around and who I listen to.

Which, oddly, was my point to Ziggaraut. He assumes women are telling us something with one voice. I point out that is not the case. So why aren't you directing this at Mr Zig?

 

[Ziggurat]

You didn't need to make anything out of it

Anything you say can and will be used against you. And I will make of it what I want.

Context sometimes helps. That doesn't make you guys abstract therapists

What I said had nothing to do with therapy. You can consider it a statement about proper terminology if that makes you feel better.

 

[theprestige]

Well your cohort just assured me that nonbinary doesn't even exist, so maybe you guys are the ones that need to huddle up and get your stories straight?

Aw. Trying to play off mommy and daddy against each other?

Disagreed. Everybody is on the binary gender expression spectrum.

Is this binary spectrum in the room with us right now?

You didn't need to make anything out of it, and certainly had no basis to run wild with your unique theories.

You didn't need to bring it up, but here we are.

Context sometimes helps. That doesn't make you guys abstract therapists, and if you want to play at that, the most basic starting point would be to acquire substantially more information.

Nobody's trying to play abstract therapist. We're making basic comments based on the basic information provided. If you don't like basic comments, don't bring basic info.

This whole sidebar is ironic, since your entire approach to trans rights in public bathrooms has been extremely basic, and extremely resistant to requests for more sophistication. I.e., proposing self-ID but refusing to grapple with any of the implications and challenges of that proposal.

 

[Ziggurat]

Which, oddly, was my point to Ziggaraut. He assumes women are telling us something with one voice.

No, I do not assume that at all. But I have observed women in this thread telling you something, and I have observed you ignoring them.

 

[Thermal]

Anything you say can and will be used against you. And I will make of it what I want.

Touche.

What I said had nothing to do with therapy. You can consider it a statement about proper terminology if that makes you feel better.

The APA and every relevant scientific body I can think up acknowledges the term you say doesn't exist. That makes me feel better.

 

[Aber]

It's hardly news that more liberal people tend to be pro-trans, and conservative anti-trans, and I am well aware of the kind of people I am around and who I listen to.

False dichotomy.

It's the conservatives AND independents that oppose your position. The Democratic party and voters seem to have made it a purity test, but even then it is still only 52% in favour.

 

[Thermal]

No, I do not assume that at all. But I have observed women in this thread telling you something, and I have observed you ignoring them.

I have listened, considered, and discussed their respective points. Each and every one bails and changes the subject, only to bring it up again a couple pages later. As i'm sure you might have heard, rinse and repeat.

 

[Ziggurat]

The APA and every relevant scientific body I can think up acknowledges the term you say doesn't exist. That makes me feel better.

The same APA that falsely claimed puberty blockers were reversible?

 

[Thermal]

The same APA that falsely claimed puberty blockers were reversible?

Seems unerring perfection is your standard for base credibility now? We should apply that universally, yes? To posters and their claims here, yes?

 

[Ziggurat]

Seems unerring perfection is your standard for base credibility now? We should apply that universally, yes? To posters and their claims here, yes?

That wasn't a mistake. That was ideological capture. And if you want to rely on them as an authority rather than just another participant in a debate, then yes, it's disqualifying.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm having significant trouble replicating your statistic here.

According to HRC there were 28 birth-assigned males and 4 birth-assigned females murdered in the U.S. in 2024.

Also according to HRC there are 2 million transgender people in the U.S.

32 out of 2 million is a baseline rate of 1.6 per 100,000 so if we take one fourth of that it would be .4 per 100,000.

Given 340 million Americans in that time period, that would be only 1,360 murders in a year, but the usual figure is around 20k.

1.6 per 100K is definitely not 4 times 5.8 per 100K.

 

[Thermal]

That wasn't a mistake. That was ideological capture. And if you want to rely on them as an authority rather than just another participant in a debate, then yes, it's disqualifying.

Ok. So we have virtually the entirety of the planet acknowledging the existence of nonbinary, including theprestige, versus Ziggaraut. I'll take that for exactly what it is. I'm sure you will be busy correcting him soon, anyway.

 

[Ziggurat]

Ok. So we have virtually the entirety of the planet acknowledging the existence of nonbinary

You live in a bubble. Global opinion is very different from the opinion of western liberal democracies (and yes, even under Trump the US is a liberal democracy in this sense).

 

[Emily's Cat]

I am not. What I have been saying from the very beginning is that I am trying to find a way to reasonably accommodate everyone, because I kind of like people and sympathize with the little guy/gal getting bullied for being different. The problem arises when the anti-trans side goes to extremes in order to represent the everyday, and it's true, the extremes have to be dealt with, which is the interesting and difficult part of this discussion. But the anti-trans side doesn't want to deal with the 99+% part, which is fairly benign and mostly the status quo anyway. They want to pretend Bryson is the norm, and start/end argumentation from there. Would it not make more sense to figure out how to maintain the staus quo, and focus on closing the loopholes for predators? I don't think that's as impossible as the anti-transers make it out to be.

There is no reasonable way to have female-only intimate spaces that allow males. Doing so makes them mixed-sex.

There's no reasonable way to let in the 99% that *you* have decided are benign males that females should just suck it up and accept while keeping out the 1% that *you* have so generously acknowledged are a problem.

It doesn't matter whether Bryson is an outlier or not - the reality is that when you make policy that allows ANY MALES the right-by-law to use female single-sex spaces, you have in effect given that right to ALL MALES because there is no way to distinguish which are which.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Ya, '◊◊◊◊ them trannys' is suboptimal, agreed.

I find it really disconcerting that you repeatedly use derogatory language in this way. Even if you think you;re just forcing those words into someone else's mouth, it's YOU who is using the slur. And I'd really prefer you didn't. FFS, try treating males with gender identity issues with at least a modicum of decency and respect.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm not even expecting transwomen to be accepted as women (I used 'women with an asterisk' as a descriptor earlier in the thread). They are not female, after all. But someone's biological sex is not something we deal with day-to-day much beyond our SOs, so I'm very inclined to treat them as what they say they are, because their DNA doesn't impact our interactions.

Well, this isn't true and you know it. You've even referenced it previously. You treat females differently than you treat males - you don't make physical contact, there are things you refrain from saying, etc. You absolutely deal with other people's biological sex every day - every time you notice a female's backside or breasts or general body shape and admire it's desirability you're dealing with other people's biological sex. Every time you adapt your behavior to avoid accidentally touching a breast where you wouldn't avoid accidentally touching a male's chest, you're dealing with other people's biological sex.

Furthermore, you are failing to recognize that how you as a male interact in the world is not the same as the way females interact in the world. There are a whole lot of situations in which someone's sex has a material impact on how females interact, but which has no effect on males. You keep looking at this entire situation from a completely male-centered perspective, you keep thinking about it from a point of "how would this affect Thermal who is male". You've entirely and completely failed to consider "how would this affect Emily who is female".

My argument here isn't for acceptance of transwomen as females, with all the female space passes that come with it. It's to not give women the right to say 'beat it you cross dressing perv' to a transwoman that is really not bothering anyone. That's not protecting women. That's protecting bigotry.

What constitutes "bothering someone" that means females do not have a right to tell a male to leave a female-only intimate space?

 

[Thermal]

I find it really disconcerting that you repeatedly use derogatory language in this way. Even if you think you;re just forcing those words into someone else's mouth, it's YOU who is using the slur.

EC, whether you like it or not, "◊◊◊◊ them trannys" is what you are saying, although it is a bit sledgehammered. Posters here have shown themselves more than happy to use offensive references to both transgenders and their supporters, including myself. It's a two way street, and I don't notice you chastising anyone else.

Would it be more polite to use Rolfe's terminology of "cross dressing pervs" or "freaks in a boob tube" that she applauded? I'll do so from here on in.

And I'd really prefer you didn't. FFS, try treating males with gender identity issues with at least a modicum of decency and respect.

I have it. I'm more than a little surprised by their portrayal in this thread. And of anyone who supports them. And fellow forumites. But y'all do y'all.

 

[Thermal]

Well, this isn't true and you know it. You've even referenced it previously. You treat females differently than you treat males - you don't make physical contact, there are things you refrain from saying, etc. You absolutely deal with other people's biological sex every day - every time you notice a female's backside or breasts or general body shape and admire it's desirability you're dealing with other people's biological sex. Every time you adapt your behavior to avoid accidentally touching a breast where you wouldn't avoid accidentally touching a male's chest, you're dealing with other people's biological sex.

I said genitalia. And no, I don't interact with them at all. Every guy and gal I meet could have anything between their legs, and I wouldn't know, or care.

When you say we are interacting with their sex, you are really interacting with their gender expression.

Furthermore, you are failing to recognize that how you as a male interact in the world is not the same as the way females interact in the world. There are a whole lot of situations in which someone's sex has a material impact on how females interact, but which has no effect on males. You keep looking at this entire situation from a completely male-centered perspective, you keep thinking about it from a point of "how would this affect Thermal who is male". You've entirely and completely failed to consider "how would this affect Emily who is female".

Don't tell me what I think. I run it both ways. If I was running with just how it affects me, there's no discussion to be had. It doesn't affect me at all. Women or transpeople in the men's room.or women's room is a matter of indifference. It's only because I am looking at it from the opposite way you claim that I have any arguments at all.

What constitutes "bothering someone" that means females do not have a right to tell a male to leave a female-only intimate space?

Wed have to make sure that "female only" was agreed to, and "intimate space" first. In my state, the former doesn't exist, and the latter might as well not (there are exclusions from indecent exposure charges when in locker rooms, etc).

 

[Thermal]

There is no reasonable way to have female-only intimate spaces that allow males. Doing so makes them mixed-sex.

There's no reasonable way to let in the 99% that *you* have decided are benign males that females should just suck it up and accept while keeping out the 1% that *you* have so generously acknowledged are a problem.

It doesn't matter whether Bryson is an outlier or not - the reality is that when you make policy that allows ANY MALES the right-by-law to use female single-sex spaces, you have in effect given that right to ALL MALES because there is no way to distinguish which are which.

I've decided nothing. We have data.

 

[Thermal]

You live in a bubble.

Everyone does. This isn't news. But it stands that what women are telling me is vastly different than what you claimed, and your claim about whether I listened was simply wrong.

Global opinion is very different from the opinion of western liberal democracies (and yes, even under Trump the US is a liberal democracy in this sense).

"Liberal democracy", by western global standards? Come on.

 

[Ziggurat]

"Liberal democracy", by western global standards? Come on.

"Western global standards" is an obvious oxymoron. If they are global, they are not western. If they are western, they are not global. Given this incoherence, I have no idea what you are trying to say. But since you seem to have trouble understanding me, I'll be a little more explicit. Opinions in China, India, and Africa (for example) about sex and gender issues are very different from opinions in the US, the UK, France, etc.

 

[Thermal]

"Western global standards" is an obvious oxymoron. If they are global, they are not western. If they are western, they are not global. Given this incoherence, I have no idea what you are trying to say.

I don't believe you. Western, from the global perspective, is not a confounding idea that leaves you befuddled.

But since you seem to have trouble understanding me, I'll be a little more explicit. Opinions in China, India, and Africa (for example) about sex and gender issues are very different from opinions in the US, the UK, France, etc.

Which in terms of you telling me what I'm told by women and whether or not I listen is irrelevant.

 

[Ziggurat]

Which in terms of you telling me what I'm told by women and whether or not I listen is irrelevant.

It's very relevant to your claim that "we have virtually the entirety of the planet acknowledging the existence of nonbinary". Did you forget that this is what the current exchange is about?

 

[smartcooky]

False dichotomy.

It's the conservatives AND independents that oppose your position. The Democratic party and voters seem to have made it a purity test, but even then it is still only 52% in favour.

I am centre-left, so a moderate liberal. I am pro trans-rights in that I believe transgender people should have the same rights as every other citizen to not be discriminated against in matters of education, employment, housing, freedom of speech and personal preferences. But that is not absolute - I am opposed to the idea that trans-identified males ought to be allowed to enter female safe spaces. These are not conflicting positions - just as it is not conflicting to support freedom of speech, but be opposed to that freedom being extended to allow people to publish bomb-making instructions, or falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theatre.

 

[Thermal]

It's very relevant to your claim that "we have virtually the entirety of the planet acknowledging the existence of nonbinary". Did you forget that this is what the current exchange is about?

I actually did, because it is richocheting from one random argument to the next. My bad.

Can we agree that how contemporary America rates on the western liberal democracy scale has little to do with some guy in the ladies room?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I think if you have an actual sex change, then yes, access. It shouldn't even be an issue.

Still not sure on where the reasonable line should be for a transgender, especially given that one can't be objectively drawn. That's what is making me lean towards not codifying sex and gender (my earlier position that others here are aggressively talking me out of), but leaving them vague and continue with mob rule. I'd only want to insure that mob rule neither legally allows any woman to eject anyone she pleases for no reason, and that a woman is not charged with a hate crime for ejecting Bryson.

I get that you want to be nice. I understand it, I respect it. But it's not practicable.

For all intents, what you're arguing is that females should be forced to accept males in female single-sex spaces sometimes, but not all the time. But you're not providing any outline who what those times are. And again, you end up supporting the feelings of some males as being more important than the feelings and privacy of any females.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No, I oppose one: legalized bigotry, because it does much more than control Bryson's legally protected access, which I don't think he would have much regard for anyway. Your ' solution' is to be bigoted across the board.

Why do you think it's bigotry to keep males out of female-only intimate spaces?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm mostly down with that. I'm just not feeling 100% that a public rest room is an intimate space. Like the Portland high school, there ain't much shared intimacy going on in a closed stall by yourself and washing your hands, and maybe touching up.your makeup.

Yes, there are some feminine issues that require privacy in the name of modesty. An actual private single occupant room makes 1000% more sense to accommodate for such eventualities anyway, as well as for the occasional Rolfe who can't bear the thought of them cross dressing pervs anywhere near her. In a place big enough for multi occupant restrooms, a single occupant divided off should be no big deal.

Your proposed solution requires females to completely alter the way we behave and interact with each other, and to adopt male norms while in restrooms. Why do you believe that females should be required to become more male-like in our behavior, just so that some males get to be allowed to use female-only spaces?

In broad brush, and with the stipulation that not all transwomen are Bryson, is that a workable compromise?

What if the transwoman is Eddie Izzard, who looks entirely like a male? What if it's a male that looks like a male, is wearing jeans and a t-shirt, but really wants to use the female toilets?

Why do you think that females should be required to compromise our single-sex intimate spaces at all?

More specifically... why do you seem to believe that the feelings of some males are more important than the feelings, privacy, and dignity of all females?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Many folks here have said that they are just fine with laws or policies preventing employment discrimination against transgender people, but as soon as actual policies came up forcibly separating trans folk from active duty service (e.g. here in the U.S.) they either went mum or else switched sides and started arguing for employment discrimination against transgender employees under those specific circumstances.

Here's the deal: I'm all for preventing employment discrimination on the basis of gendered presentation or belief. I'm for it in exactly the same way that I'm for preventing employment discrimination on the basis of disability. When the item under discussion either has no bearing on the job being performed, or when the accommodation needed for it is reasonable and not unduly burdensome, I totally support those protections.

I have no objection to people with severe gender dysphoria being excluded from military service, for the same reason that I have no objection to people with clinical depression, bipolar disorder, or severe OCD being excluded. If the dysphoria is severe enough that the individual requires ongoing mental health treatment for it, that is a disqualifying condition for military service, because it directly precludes their ability to actually serve in wartime. Similarly, I have no objection to physically transitioned people being excluded from military service for the same reason that I have no objection to people with epilepsy or asthma being excluded from military service. Any medical condition that requires steady and persistent medical treatment is a disqualifying condition for military service, because it directly precludes their ability to actually serve in wartime.

Now... If an individual identifies as transgender, but does not require psychological or medical treatment, and does not require accommodations in housing or clothing, then I don't care. If a male has gendery feels, but is content to serve in male military clothing, in male military dormitories, and being referred to as "sir" when such comes up... then there's no problem at all.

But the reality is that military service is NOT just like any other job. It has considerably different requirements to even be considered, there are both physical and psychological fitness requirements that are fundamentally necessary to be able to serve in a military capacity.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I can see treating downrange combat duty as a special case, but not the folks manning desks at the logistics hub tryna get war materiel to the right place at the right time, nor the folks flying drones from a remote site in Nevada, nor the folks calculating orbital transfers for Space Force, nor the folks doing office work at the Pentagon. Those latter cases are all office jobs, and it's just fine if they need hormones or blood pressure meds on a daily basis.

There's never any guarantee that someone in a non-combat MOS will be entirely protected from combat. Every military service member is required to be able to serve in combat if needed. Even the chair force.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The women telling me this are a small handful who show abnormally extreme bias.

No, we're not a small handful, and it's not an abnormal extreme bias to not want strange males in our restrooms!

Where the heck is that survey from 2024 that showed that a large majority of females are no longer okay with transgender identified males using female restrooms?

 

[Emily's Cat]

ETA: also Men Only, Women Only, and Others is probably the worst solution imaginable.

Why on earth is this the worst solution to you?