Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
I don't see the relevance. You suggested a vote that only women could vote in."...it would have to be reintroduced and passed in 2025 to be in effect for the 119th Congress."
I don't see the relevance. You suggested a vote that only women could vote in."...it would have to be reintroduced and passed in 2025 to be in effect for the 119th Congress."
That post is a copout, and not actually responsive to the discussion.See post #1780.
The law says nothing about how informed voters need to be. That has never been a requirement. So again, what standard are you trying to apply here? Is it the law? Or is it something else? You jump back and forth with no consistency.As I said there, men don't "know what those spaces are uniquely good for" and are thus underinformed when they make policy.
The couple who run PinkNews, the world's largest LGBT news website, have been accused by staff of multiple incidents of sexual misconduct.
Several former staff members told the BBC they saw Anthony James, a director at the UK-based company and husband of its founder, kissing and touching a junior colleague who they say appeared too drunk to consent.
And more than 30 current and former members of staff said a culture of heavy drinking led to instances when founder Benjamin Cohen and his husband behaved inappropriately towards younger male employees.
Representatives for Mr Cohen and Dr James told the BBC they were not able to provide a statement at this time, but that their position is that the allegations are false.
15 chapters of this thread rather challenges your assumptionI should not have to point out that it does not, at least not on a discussion board about science and evidence.
Absolutely, and for good reason: Consent is not transferable. Pixel cannot consent on my behalf to allow a male to see me naked in the showers; I cannot consent on Pixel's behalf to allow a male to expose themself to Pixel in the sauna.I'm pretty sure I agree with you, but you seem to have set aside the feelings of the women who say he is welcome.
Someone brought up rights, I was pointing out how rights actually exist. Personally I try to avoid rights-based arguments since they mostly come down to the latest high court picks.So again, what standard are you trying to apply here? Is it the law? Or is it something else?
*shouldYou suggested a vote that only women could vote in.
And you did so in a manner at odds with your own prior assertions about women and the spaces that allegedly belong to them. Nothing in this response even touches on the inconsistency in your position that I pointed out.Someone brought up rights, I was pointing out how rights actually exist.
It can be serious without being practical. I certainly do not expect the party of unabashedly retrograde masculinity to give up their ability to tell women what to do with themselves.So you suggest that there should be a vote which only women should vote in? This does not seem like a very practical or serious suggestion.
Allegedly? I don't think there is actually much disagreement on this point, only on what counts as womanhood.And you did so in a manner at odds with your own prior assertions about women and the spaces that allegedly belong to them.
The amusing part of this to me is that the people these men are actually telling what to do with themselves aren't the women, but other men.It can be serious without being practical. I certainly do not expect the party of unabashedly retrograde masculinity to give up their ability to tell women what to do with themselves.
Consent doesn't transfer. And regardless of any invitation, it's still men telling other men to not invade women's spaces. Which is what you previously did to me, in case you forgot.Women, don't you dare invite transwomen into your spaces! Trust us men on this.
It's men telling women how to dispose of their own spaces.And regardless of any invitation, it's still men telling other men to not invade women's spaces.
Congresswomen are much, much less likely to complain than Congressmen, but I say we let them each decide about their own spaces rather than trying to come up with a one-size-fits-all rule which ignores the differences between males and females.But it's women who are the ones complaining?
You’re still begging the question that it’s their space to begin with, and then ignoring the logic of why it is. Nor have you touched even once on the problem that consent isn’t transferable.It's men telling women how to dispose of their own spaces.
We already covered that upthread; the people for whom the space was designed and designated are a specific sex class.You’re still begging the question that it’s their space to begin with, and then ignoring the logic of why it is.
You are bringing consent into this as if we're talking about individual bodily integrity rather than the disposition of collectively owned property.Nor have you touched even once on the problem that consent isn’t transferable.
Trans men aren't part of that class. So no, you haven't really covered that upthread.We already covered that upthread; the people for whom the space was designed and designated are a specific sex class.
Gee, I wonder why individual bodily integrity might be implicated in this issue. Can you puzzle that one out?You are bringing consent into this as if we're talking about individual bodily integrity rather than the disposition of collectively owned property.
At this point, that kind of describes both parties.It can be serious without being practical. I certainly do not expect the party of unabashedly retrograde masculinity to give up their ability to tell women what to do with themselves.
Of course trans men are part of the sex class (female) for whom women's spaces were originally designed and designated. They just happen not to look like it, much of the time, because cross-sex hormone therapy is highly effective when going from F to M.Trans men aren't part of that class.
It has many purposes (listed out here) several of which you cannot possibly have had experience of yourself.And you're also making another mistake, which is that the space isn't designed for women to just do whatever they want. It has a specific purpose.
You must be a wise man, to tell all these women what the singular primary purpose must be.Women can use it for other purposes so long as those other purposes don't interfere with its primary purpose.
It does if they say it does, it does not if they say it does not....letting males into that space just because the males say they are female interferes with the purpose of that space.
Again, you have presumed to tell them what that purpose is, and again, it is not your place to do so.It's allocated to women (not just congresswomen) for a specific purpose.
We're talking about trans women, not trans men.Of course trans men are part of the sex class (female) for whom women's spaces were originally designed and designated.
My personal experience isn't relevant, because none of my arguments depend upon personal experience. And this isn't about counting. Whether we want to call it one multi-part purpose or many purposes, the point is, it ISN'T meant for anything and everything.It has many purposes (listed out here) several of which you cannot possibly have had experience of yourself.
Who exactly is "they"? And no, that's not how it works.It does if they say it does, it does not if they say it does not.
I'm not the one telling anyone the purpose. Congress is. And it's kind of obvious that Congress is telling people the purpose. That's inherent in the designation of the space as a restroom, and not as a general purpose room. I somehow don't think women actually feel patronized by such a designation, so your attempt to white knight this is rather absurd.Again, you have presumed to tell them what that purpose is, and again, it is not your place to do so.
You said "trans men" so I replied accordingly.We're talking about trans women, not trans men.
The sex class for whom these spaces were designed and designated. Thankfully, there are quite a few who are allowed to vote.Who exactly is "they"? And no, that's not how it works.
Congress consists of individuals who can easily be classified into two sex classes. Should this bill come to a vote in the 119th Congress, the sex class traditionally associated with masculinity will have their way, overriding the preferences of the other one. This doesn't strike me as a particularly sensible way to solve the problem, given that the uses of the female space do not overlap with the uses of the other space (aside from elimination and washing up) and also given that we have no evidence that the Congressmen are aware of these differences.I'm not the one telling anyone the purpose. Congress is.
And they voted already. And this is the result of that vote. Either you take voting seriously, or you don't. But you're playing this weird game where you want some votes to matter and some votes to not matter, with no actual rhyme or reason dictating which is which.The sex class for whom these spaces were designed and designated. Thankfully, there are quite a few who are allowed to vote.
You seem to want to segregate voting by sex. That's... weird.Congress consists of individuals who can easily be classified into two sex classes. Should this bill come to a vote in the 119th Congress, the sex class traditionally associated with masculinity will have their way
I'm OK with that. Because I'm OK with some preferences being overridden on matters of principle. Some things shouldn't be ceded to simple majority opinion. I believe this is one of those cases. And many women agree. Despite your constant appeals to what women want, you seem intent on ignoring this group of women., overriding the preferences of the other one.
You don't seem to want to solve the problem at all. You seem to just want to pass the buck.This doesn't strike me as a particularly sensible way to solve the problem
How do representatives get selected? By the public voting. The public already voted, including all the women that YOU don't actually want to get a voice in this issue. Except they do, by who they voted for for Congress. And the current makeup of Congress is the result of that vote.Wait, what?
And that result is overwhelming biased in favor of one sex.How do representatives get selected? By the public voting. The public already voted, including all the women that YOU don't actually want to get a voice in this issue. Except they do, by who they voted for for Congress. And the current makeup of Congress is the result of that vote.
So what? Why do you really care what genitals your representative has? Do you have a problem with women who vote for men? Do you think a man cannot represent a woman's interests? Do you think women can't represent men's interests? Do you think sex is the most important quality a person possesses?And that result is overwhelming biased in favor of one sex.
That was what seemed to bring my pro-trans friend up short when I pointed it out. I'd had half an hour of "how many would it be anyway" when I said I didn't think males should be sent to women's prisons,* and all about how she didn't mind if there were males in any women's toilets she was in. I said (trying not to have a row about it), "I don't think women who are OK about this have the right to surrender women's single-sex spaces on behalf of the women who aren't." Her face completely changed and she seemed to see the point, and dropped the subject.
I thought of a lot more that might have been more persuasive, such as the women who aren't OK about it including Moslem women who have to remove their hijab to perform the ritual wash before prayer, and need a male-free space to do that in, and orthodox Jewish women (not sure about the exact theology of that) and women who have been traumatised by a man and have a panic reaction to discovering a man in a space they believe to be female-only, but when she didn't pursue the point I left it alone for the sake of peace.
*Adam "Isla" Bryson happened about two weeks later.
So they aren't generally aware of many of the factors which make women's spaces unique.So what?
Not when they are ignorant of what makes women's spaces unique.Do you think a man cannot represent a woman's interests?
Not when they are ignorant of what makes men's spaces unique.Do you think women can't represent men's interests?
When we are talking about sex-segregated spaces, experience matters.Do you think sex is the most important quality a person possesses?
Again, so what?So they aren't generally aware of many of the factors which make women's spaces unique.
And now we're back to yet another inconsistency in your own position. You made a judgment call based not on the merits of the issue itself, but only on the preferences of a group (and your selection of which group you want to listen to is itself problematic, as I previously described). Politicians are capable of doing the same with their constituents. In fact, they're very good at doing that, it is arguably their primary function. They don't need to know why their constituents have the preferences they have, they only need to know what those preferences are. Arguing that they don't understand the why of those preferences is completely irrelevant.Not when they are ignorant of what makes women's spaces unique.
In what way? Not in order to represent the interests of other people it doesn't.When we are talking about sex-segregated spaces, experience matters.
I didn't make a judgement call, except where men's spaces are concerned. Unlike yourself, I don't believe men ought to be telling women what do with their spaces or their bodies.You made a judgment call based not on the merits of the issue itself, but only on the preferences of a group (and your selection of which group you want to listen to is itself problematic, as I previously described).
They cannot possibly represent interests of which they are unaware; they cannot possibly know what the experience of feminine modesty feels like as a member of the weaker and more vulnerable sex.Not in order to represent the interests of other people it doesn't.
Yes you did. You think that transwomen should be permitted because congresswomen think they should. That's a judgment call. Who you want to defer to is a judgment call that you're making, even if you aren't deciding on the issue itself.I didn't make a judgement call
First off, who the hell is talking about bodies? Don't pull that bull ◊◊◊◊ here. Go pretend to be a white knight somewhere else.Unlike yourself, I don't believe men ought to be telling women what do with their spaces or their bodies.
They are aware that some women have an interest in not allowing men into that space. That suffices.They cannot possibly represent interests of which they are unaware
They don't need to, because that's not how representative democracy works. And it's really, really strange for you to appeal to feminine modesty in order to justify allowing males into women's spaces.; they cannot possibly know what the experience of feminine modesty feels like as a member of the weaker and more vulnerable sex.
They haven't been asked yet, but I have argued that they should be given a say regardless of outcome.You think that transwomen should be permitted because congresswomen think they should.
Yes, they can. When they do, I'm willing to bet that the stated preferences of the men will override the stated preferences of the women who actually use those spaces.Congress can allocate that space as Congress sees fit.
As I said . . . regardless of outcome.And it's really, really strange for you to appeal to feminine modesty in order to justify allowing males into women's spaces.
They have been given a say.They haven't been asked yet, but I have argued that they should be given a say regardless of outcome.
Which women? The only women you've references are congresswomen, but congresswomen are not the primary users of those spaces.Yes, they can. When they do, I'm willing to bet that the stated preferences of the men will override the stated preferences of the women who actually use those spaces.
Yet you don't trust the statements of women in this thread that say they don't want males in the bathroom, and that this will make the unsafe.Feminist have an old saying on point: Trust Women.