• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Merged Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

As I have said many times: when it's someone the women know and trust, they may well be fine with giving them access. That was already happening, long before TRAs started making their strident demands. The point is it's their choice to make.
Ok. How does that work in practice? Like in a public rest room or gym open to the public? Do you have some kind of clique that has a representative there at all times, allowing the "passing" transwoman in, and refusing others? That sounds problematic on a few levels.
 
The problem with this is the false promise that's at the heart of this movement (& I think is often overlooked). Some same-sex attracted males like the idea of being a heterosexual woman better than a gay man, but (broadly speaking) they're never going to be accepted as such when looking for long-term partners.
You would think it's easier for a trans woman to find a male heterosexual partner (who would find out right pronto that the trans woman is a biological male) than a gay man to find another gay man? That sounds pretty bold.

Eta: I may be misreading you, here. Are you saying someone might like the idea of being a hetero woman more than being a gay man, so chooses one over the other? Cuz I'm like 99.999% positive that it's not a choice thing, any more than your choice of being male or female or straight or gay is.
 
Last edited:
This is a problem. How do women know what the policy of a particular establishment is? Should every venue have a prominent notice on display advising patrons of their rules? Because if not, where do we stand?

The sign on the door says Ladies, or something to indicate that, and once inside I encounter Alex Drummond or Eddie Izzard or Dustin Hoffman in full costume and makeup as Tootsie. I register a protest, and the establishment informs me that they are fully inclusive and everyone is welcome to use the facilities where they're most comfortable. It's implied that I'm a bigot and have committed a hate crime.

That's a huge concern at the moment and I have felt it myself, in a theatre where I was waiting for a friend outside the Ladies and saw a six-foot-plus dude in a skimpy red dress, high heels and makeup stride confidently (or defiantly) inside. As I wasn't actually inside at the time I ignored it, but if I had been I would have been extremely uncomfortable. But could I have relied on the theatre staff to back me up if I had objected to his presence? I doubt it, and I imagine so did the women who were inside at the time.

Without some sort of uniformity of rules, men are simply going to go where they like and women are going to be too intimidated to challenge them.
Are you generally afraid of men in any setting at all? Would no one have been around this theater rest room to help you if this person attacked (and why you assume this person of all the people you run across would attack you at all is kind of odd)?

I totally get the voyeur/exhibitionist threat in a showering kind of area. But there seems to be this undercurrent thought that a trans person should be assumed to be much more dangerous than any other bio male.

And yes, I know you posted stats that suggest trans people should be assumed to be more violent. The same could be said of black people, and I'd reject that as a reason to fear all black people too, and for the same reasons.

Seriously: why, in a presumably crowded area, would you feel threatened by an open transwoman publicly walking into a restroom and using the stall next to you?

I mean, I've been in mixed sex multi occupant public restrooms, and I admit it feels odd, especially at first, but if you are not alone (and no one around to call to for help), what exactly do you think would happen, that would be unique from a bio man just walking in? There's no lock on a multi occupant theatre restroom door, is there?
 
Last edited:
Huh. Honestly haven't seen one of them since my high schools prison style showers, built around 1960. Even my kids' college dorms had individual stalls, and all the gyms I've seen have individuals. Surprising.

And yes, 100% of the women affected would be... you know, 100% of them. I just wasn't sure how many showers and users of them we were talking about. Like, if there were a few gyms that still had prison showers, requiring them to upgrade to normal single stalls (possibly just installing privacy dividers in the existing setup) doesn't seem.like that big a deal.

Eta: although to reiterate: I don't think.its a good idea. I'm just trying to determine the realistic risk assessment. Saying 100% of women would suddenly find themselves in jeopardy seems a little off.
I have gotten an update from my wife: the women's showers are actually stalls! Who knew? Oh, they did, huh.
 
Don't recall whether this write-up has been shared at some point in the last few years of this thread, but it's a new year so here goes:


I'd be interested in hearing whether anyone finds Novella's take persuasive.
I thought it was a very good article but it hinges, IMHO, on the definition of mental disorder: "a lack or alternation in a function possessed by most healthy individuals that causes demonstrable harm."

The problem with that definition - as useful as it may be for professionals - is that there is no necessary connection between the organic malfunctioning of something within the mind or brain and its practical effect on the person in the real world.*

The problem this produces for lay people is that it seems incongruous that person A and B have the same brain or mind malfunction and A is in a situation in which there is no or little resulting harm or negative effect, but for B there is, yet one is mentally ill and the other is not.




*That lack of a necessary connection is why the definition has to include it explicitly. The definition implicitly acknowledges that the same internal situation in a mind or brain may produce practical effects for the person in the real world that may or may not lead to harm or negative effects for the person.
 
Since you requested feedback, I happen to already have results handy.

I haven't locked my home's doors but maybe half a dozen times in the last decade, even when leaving the continent for over a week. Never at all on a routine day or night. Anyone attempting entry will have a canine to deal with who, like our last dog, really really doesn't like strangers.

My work truck's back door lock doesn't work, so, with literally thousands in easily hockable tools and goods in reach, it goes unlocked for all but a few times per year. And during the work day, my keys and wallet are in fact on the console (in fairness, not on the dashboard).

But to your somewhat vacuous point: locking a door is an actual positive stop, preventing all but determined thieves with tools. A sign on a restroom is literally nothing to stop anyone from doing anything. Rules about who goes in are not physically preventative to a violent criminal in the way a lock is; they do zero.
That won't be the experience shared by most people. If you keep your house and vehicles unlocked, sooner or later it will come back and bite you on the arse.

Maybe women's toilets need to have guards dogs inside :rolleyes:
Since you snipped the part of the post that addressed that directly, I'll repeat it for you: the threat of the less violent voyeur/exhibitionist is still very real, and they probably would be encouraged or discouraged by the rules or a sign (unlike a violent attacker), so that needs to be dealt with, like I said, unlike your foolish assertion that I tell the women to STFU.
Your attitude to this appears to be that womens' discomfit with the prospect of men being allowed into their safe spaces as of right, is of no import. Like biological sex, this is binary - you either support the concept of safe spaces or you don't.
If you support it, then you oppose the concept of biological men being able to selfID by fiat to gain access
If you don't support it, then you are fine with biological men having right of access to women's toilets, shelters and rape crisis centres
There is nothing in between in this debate - no grey area.
Where do you stand in this issue?

Yes, you say that every time things get thorny for you.
Bwahahaha! Thorny? Your posts are about as thorny as a Ouachita blackberry bush!

You think you pose tough questions, but mostly, you pose stupid ones - questions that have already been answered multiple times in your absence from this dicussion.
 
Ok. How does that work in practice? Like in a public rest room or gym open to the public? Do you have some kind of clique that has a representative there at all times, allowing the "passing" transwoman in, and refusing others? That sounds problematic on a few levels.
Simply knocking on the door and asking the permission of the women already present to enter would probably be sufficient; in most cases the women would already have seen the transwoman in the gym/swimming pool/pub/whatever, and would have formed an opinion of their trustworthiness. If it's somewhere the transwoman visits regularly an initial "no" might eventually become a "yes" once trust has been earned. If the transwoman has a girlfriend with them who can vouch for them that would obviously help. What would most help is if the women were confident that if they made a mistake, and someone they gave permission to enter then behaved inappropriately, they need only raise the alarm and the staff would eject the offender.
 
You would think it's easier for a trans woman to find a male heterosexual partner (who would find out right pronto that the trans woman is a biological male) than a gay man to find another gay man? That sounds pretty bold.

Eta: I may be misreading you, here. Are you saying someone might like the idea of being a hetero woman more than being a gay man, so chooses one over the other? Cuz I'm like 99.999% positive that it's not a choice thing, any more than your choice of being male or female or straight or gay is.
Yes - a misunderstanding. The point being that the person you know (from what you've described) is objectively a same-sex attracted male - AKA a gay man. That person apparently chooses to ID as a heterosexual woman because they prefer that identity. But they are not going to be accepted as such by heterosexual males (as it looks like you acknowledge above). This is what I mean by the false premise of the movement - it encourages people to identify as something they can't be accepted as (& implies that millions of years of selection is a prejudice that can be overcome).

As to the second part - the choice thing- I strongly suspect that this is entirely a cultural artifact -
The "wrong body" hypothesis is inherently flawed - a brain in a male body is by definition a male brain.
 
Last edited:
Are you generally afraid of men in any setting at all? Would no one have been around this theater rest room to help you if this person attacked (and why you assume this person of all the people you run across would attack you at all is kind of odd)?

I totally get the voyeur/exhibitionist threat in a showering kind of area. But there seems to be this undercurrent thought that a trans person should be assumed to be much more dangerous than any other bio male.

And yes, I know you posted stats that suggest trans people should be assumed to be more violent. The same could be said of black people, and I'd reject that as a reason to fear all black people too, and for the same reasons.

Seriously: why, in a presumably crowded area, would you feel threatened by an open transwoman publicly walking into a restroom and using the stall next to you?

I mean, I've been in mixed sex multi occupant public restrooms, and I admit it feels odd, especially at first, but if you are not alone (and no one around to call to for help), what exactly do you think would happen, that would be unique from a bio man just walking in? There's no lock on a multi occupant theatre restroom door, is there?
I get it, too. Some countries are just more prudish than others.
Back in the 1980s, I visited my German ex-girlfriend in Hamburg over the weekend. One day, she was going to the local indoor swimming pool and asked me to join her. I was used to beaches being textile-free in both Denmark and Germany, but I was surprised when we went to the sauna after swimming (with bathing suits), and the sauna turned out to be textile-free and unisex. I am pretty sure that most saunas in Germany are, but I wasn't aware of that at the time.
Everything you need to know about German saunas (Lingoda, Nov 4, 2024)
Generally speaking, German saunas tend to be 'textile-free', so you should be prepared to go in the nip. You should also keep in mind that many saunas are mixed-sex spaces, however no one bats an eyelid at naked men and women sharing a sauna. Depending on where you are coming from, this kind of non-sexualized public nudity can be rather jarring, so if this does make you uncomfortable, you can always search for a single-sex sauna.
Confidence is key, though you may have to 'fake it till you make it'. Just keep in mind that no one is fixating on you the way you fixate on yourself. Around other people in the sauna, don't gawk, just keep your gaze level and blasé. You will get used to the experience quicker than you might imagine, and the etiquette will become second nature to you.
I have never been to a single-sex sauna in Germany. I didn't even know that they existed, but I assume that the author of the article knows what she is talking about. Even in international hotels in Germany, the saunas are unisex. It surprised my Danish girlfriend, a former air hostess, who had been far more hotels than I.
I know how difficult it is for Americans to grasp the concept, but the description in the quotation above captures my own experience, except that I found the German attitude relaxed and natural and didn't feel the need to 'fake it till you make it'. In fact, I find questions like this hilarious:
Is it a big problem if you get a boner in a German sauna? (Reddit)
I’m going to Germany soon and we’re probably gonna go to some spas and saunas, but I’ve heard that you’re naked in them. I’m not really used to that so I think it could happen that I get an involuntary boner.
edit: to clarify: i’m not a weirdo and wouldn’t go around ogling or being weird because that’s not how I am.
I never got an erection at a textile-free beach or a unisex sauna, and I never saw anybody else getting one. I suspect that you would have to go to one of the above-mentioned single-sex saunas to see that. I also never saw anybody "ogling or being weird." And I never saw anybody I might suspect of being a transexual. Transvestism would obviously be impossible in a textile-free sauna.

As for the public restrooms, there was another ISF thread a few years ago about that. Back then, I linked to an article by a Danish feminist demanding that all public restrooms be turned into "mixed sex multi occupant public restrooms," if I remember correctly. The only thing that surprised me about her demand was that single-sex public restrooms apparently still exist in Denmark. I don't remember seeing one in the last 20 years or so.
 
I get it, too. Some countries are just more prudish than others.
Not sure if prudish is the right word, so much as... I dunno, invasive? We have gone to the little boys and girls rooms our whole lives, so seeing a woman in the bathroom I walk into feels like I'm doing something wrong.
Back in the 1980s, I visited my German ex-girlfriend in Hamburg over the weekend. One day, she was going to the local indoor swimming pool and asked me to join her. I was used to beaches being textile-free in both Denmark and Germany, but I was surprised when we went to the sauna after swimming (with bathing suits), and the sauna turned out to be textile-free and unisex. I am pretty sure that most saunas in Germany are, but I wasn't aware of that at the time.

I have never been to a single-sex sauna in Germany. I didn't even know that they existed, but I assume that the author of the article knows what she is talking about. Even in international hotels in Germany, the saunas are unisex. It surprised my Danish girlfriend, a former air hostess, who had been far more hotels than I.
I know how difficult it is for Americans to grasp the concept, but the description in the quotation above captures my own experience, except that I found the German attitude relaxed and natural and didn't feel the need to 'fake it till you make it'. In fact, I find questions like this hilarious:

I never got an erection at a textile-free beach or a unisex sauna, and I never saw anybody else getting one. I suspect that you would have to go to one of the above-mentioned single-sex saunas to see that. I also never saw anybody "ogling or being weird." And I never saw anybody I might suspect of being a transexual. Transvestism would obviously be impossible in a textile-free sauna.
Yeah, being naked around others has an initial jarring effect, then it's surprisingly quick to get used to, IME, anyway. Kind of like being in a locker room. You're not used to being naked with people you were just fully clothed around (feels like "are we gonna ◊◊◊◊ or something?") then in like ten seconds, you don't even clock it anymore.

When I was on a Rescue Squad way back, even badly injured people were noticably self conscious if we had to cut their clothes open to keep the inside stuff where it belonged. I mean, how deep can modesty run when you get shy with people trying to keep your blood inside you?
As for the public restrooms, there was another ISF thread a few years ago about that. Back then, I linked to an article by a Danish feminist demanding that all public restrooms be turned into "mixed sex multi occupant public restrooms," if I remember correctly. The only thing that surprised me about her demand was that single-sex public restrooms apparently still exist in Denmark. I don't remember seeing one in the last 20 years or so.
They got suddenly hip around here I guess 15 or so years ago. My vaguest of impressions is that they were tried out, and got feedback saying people weren't feeling it, and reverted back to single sex. I thought I saw the sign for a mixed sex large rest room recently in Pittsburgh, but didn't go in.
 
That won't be the experience shared by most people. If you keep your house and vehicles unlocked, sooner or later it will come back and bite you on the arse.
True enough, it's probably not tremendously common. That's what I kind of like about the forum, though. People share quite a spectrum of their respective lifestyles. It's interesting, from a comparative sense anyway.
Your attitude to this appears to be that womens' discomfit with the prospect of men being allowed into their safe spaces as of right, is of no import.
Somehow, you are misreading my very plain speaking posts, where I adamantly say the opposite.
Like biological sex, this is binary - you either support the concept of safe spaces or you don't.
If you support it, then you oppose the concept of biological men being able to selfID by fiat to gain access
If you don't support it, then you are fine with biological men having right of access to women's toilets, shelters and rape crisis centres
There is nothing in between in this debate - no grey area.
Where do you stand in this issue?
Exactly where I've said I stand. I have mixed feelings and am discussing it on a board where there are a wide variety of opinions, to work out if there is some middle ground that might not have occurred to any of us individually.
Bwahahaha! Thorny? Your posts are about as thorny as a Ouachita blackberry bush!

You think you pose tough questions, but mostly, you pose stupid ones - questions that have already been answered multiple times in your absence from this dicussion.
You really misunderstand... like virtually everything, apparently to make douchey personal comments. Please knock it off.

I'm not posing "tough" questions. They are pretty bland. That they are thorny for you is a "you" thing.

It was recently mentioned that you said you would attack and cripple a trans woman just for entering a women's rest room (not said by you, but no denial from you either). If that is your position, that's profoundly bigoted. Any "thorniness" about that is solidly a "you" thing.
 
Last edited:
It was recently mentioned that you said you would attack and cripple a trans woman
just for entering a women's rest room(not said by you, but no denial from you either). If that is your position, that's profoundly bigoted. Any "thorniness" about that is solidly a "you" thing.
That is a complete misrepresentation of what I posted.

I posted this meme

FB_IMG_1727094412494.jpg


Please note: It says "If you follow my daughter or my wife.... " NOT "... just for entering..."

And I stand by that. After what happened to my daughters at a couple of the public toilets in my home town (two separate occasions) I have armed them with the necessary "tools" to deal with biological males who accost them in women's bathrooms.
 
That is a complete misrepresentation of what I posted.

I posted this meme

FB_IMG_1727094412494.jpg


Please note: It says "If you follow my daughter or my wife.... " NOT "... just for entering..."
I see that. I see it also doesn't say "attack" or "assault" my wife or daughter. The meme creator specificly chose to indicate a legal and nonviolent act: following. They wanted it clear that the threat to violently batter and cripple would be purely aggressive.

And who does this apply to? The meme says "if you belong in the men's room". Google tells me that trans women are allowed in women's rest rooms in NZ, so they legally belong there. So either this is not about trans women, or the meme creator wants to say your laws don't apply to him. He makes his own rules, which is consistent with his promise to cripple a person who has commited no crime.

Surely you see how this message is problematic?
And I stand by that. After what happened to my daughters at a couple of the public toilets in my home town (two separate occasions) I have armed them with the necessary "tools" to deal with biological males who accost them in women's bathrooms.
You've said that before, and I'm truly sorry to hear it. But at some level, you must understand that all trans women are not violent, and don't deserve these threats? I mean, trans women make up less than one percent of the population, and violent trans women are a yet smaller percentage of that small percentage. The odds are staggeringly against that either of your daughters would run up against one in their lifetimes, and absolutely infinitesimal for both to run across them on two seperate occasions so early. I'm sure it must seem to you like trans women are all aggressive attackers, but maybe your daughters just had astoundingly bad luck?
 
Last edited:
Stop assenting to the erasure of women's intimate spaces for the comfort and gratification of what you laughingly think is a miniscule number of men. Women matter too.
 
I see that. I see it also doesn't say "attack" or "assault" my wife or daughter. The meme creator specificly chose to indicate a legal and nonviolent act: following. They wanted it clear that the threat to violently batter and cripple would be purely aggressive.

And who does this apply to? The meme says "if you belong in the men's room". Google tells me that trans women are allowed in women's rest rooms in NZ, so they legally belong there. So either this is not about trans women, or the meme creator wants to say your laws don't apply to him. He makes his own rules, which is consistent with his promise to cripple a person who has commited no crime.

Surely you see how this message is problematic?

You've said that before, and I'm truly sorry to hear it. But at some level, you must understand that all trans women are not violent, and don't deserve these threats? I mean, trans women make up less than one percent of the population, and violent trans women are a yet smaller percentage of that small percentage. The odds are staggeringly against that either of your daughters would run up against one in their lifetimes, and absolutely infinitesimal for both to run across them on two seperate occasions so early. I'm sure it must seem to you like trans women are all aggressive attackers, but maybe your daughters just had astoundingly bad luck?
And what of violent men who use "trans rights" as a ruse to get into women's private spaces, such as bathrooms? You seem to have ignored those.
 
Stop assenting to the erasure of women's intimate spaces for the comfort and gratification of what you laughingly think is a miniscule number of men. Women matter too.
How about this, why not oppose the erasure of women's intimate spaces without approving of vigilantism? If the law allows for transwomen in women's toilets, then it is one thing to argue against that, but in the meme that was posted, it was insinuated that any transwomen who legally accesses toilets could be or should be violently assaulted to the point of being crippled.

To me, such memes are no better than the despicable support or even glorification of the behaviour of Luigi Mangione. The people cheering that on will make similarly desperate rationalizations.
 
And what of violent men who use "trans rights" as a ruse to get into women's private spaces, such as bathrooms? You seem to have ignored those.
Surely such violent men should be arrested and prosecuted to the full extent of the law just as we would expect prosecutions of those who violently mete out their own extra-legal punishments of people who had done nothing wrong? Is it too much to ask to say that violence by transwomen and by vigilantes should both be condemned?

I don't honestly believe that either you, GlennB or Rolfe, would appreciate living in a world in which people decide to beat the crap out of others who have broken no laws but somehow violate their own head-cannon laws.
 
Surely such violent men should be arrested and prosecuted to the full extent of the law just as we would expect prosecutions of those who violently mete out their own extra-legal punishments of people who had done nothing wrong? Is it too much to ask to say that violence by transwomen and by vigilantes should both be condemned?

I don't honestly believe that either you, GlennB or Rolfe, would appreciate living in a world in which people decide to beat the crap out of others who have broken no laws but somehow violate their own head-cannon laws.
Looks like you'd allow the fox into the henhouse and then punish it for the harm it does, rather than make the henhouse secure against foxes.
 
Looks like you'd allow the fox into the henhouse and then punish it for the harm it does, rather than make the henhouse secure against foxes.
Nope. Never said anything like that at all.

But now your analogy is curious to me. Are you saying that people should basically beat up transwomen who go into women's toilets even if they are legally allowed to? (As a means of making women's toilets secure). Because that is what I am objecting to.

If, on the other hand, you are saying that transwomen should not legally be allowed into women's toilets, then we could agree.

So tell me what you are saying and stop me having to guess the meaning of your riddles.
 
Nope. Never said anything like that at all.

But now your analogy is curious to me. Are you saying that people should basically beat up transwomen who go into women's toilets even if they are legally allowed to? (As a means of making women's toilets secure). Because that is what I am objecting to.

If, on the other hand, you are saying that transwomen should not legally be allowed into women's toilets, then we could agree.

So tell me what you are saying and stop me having to guess the meaning of your riddles.
Nope. Never said anything like that at all.

But now your analogy is curious to me. Are you saying that people should basically beat up transwomen who go into women's toilets even if they are legally allowed to? (As a means of making women's toilets secure). Because that is what I am objecting to.

If, on the other hand, you are saying that transwomen should not legally be allowed into women's toilets, then we could agree.

So tell me what you are saying and stop me having to guess the meaning of your riddles.
Where did I, or anyone else, advocate beating up transwomen who venture into women's bathrooms etc??? Simply don't allow them access. If they go in anyway then call security or the police.
 
Where did I, or anyone else, advocate beating up transwomen who venture into women's bathrooms etc??? Simply don't allow them access. If they go in anyway then call security or the police.
This post does exactly that.

As Thermal points out, we are not talking here about a transwoman who is molesting someone, just "following" them into a toilet in which they are legally allowed to.

That is a complete misrepresentation of what I posted.

I posted this meme

FB_IMG_1727094412494.jpg


Please note: It says "If you follow my daughter or my wife.... " NOT "... just for entering..."

And I stand by that. After what happened to my daughters at a couple of the public toilets in my home town (two separate occasions) I have armed them with the necessary "tools" to deal with biological males who accost them in women's bathrooms.
If you want to make it illegal for transwomen to use public toilets, then I can support that (although I would prefer to have the option of exceptions to this rule rather than self-ID, but that is a separate issue).

But one thing I do not condone, and I don't think anyone here should, is some blanket declaration of support or glorification of pre-emptive vigilante justice.
 
Looks like you'd allow the fox into the henhouse and then punish it for the harm it does, rather than make the henhouse secure against foxes.
And how exactly are you securing the henhouse? With a sign on the door that says "No Foxes"?

Hey, if you're right, we can just put a sign up that says "No Attackers" and problem solved! You know, because violent criminals care so much about the signs.
 
Last edited:
And how exactly are you securing the henhouse? With a sign on the door that says "No Foxes"?
By ensuring the hens know that, if a fox ignores the sign and enters the henhouse, all they need to do is raise the alarm and the farmer will immediately come running and deal with it.

Not by telling both hens and farmers that foxes have a legal right to enter the hen house, so long as they claim to identify as hens.
 
By ensuring the hens know that, if a fox ignores the sign and enters the henhouse, all they need to do is raise the alarm and the farmer will immediately come running and deal with it.

Not by telling both hens and farmers that foxes have a legal right to enter the hen house, so long as they claim to identify as hens.
How do you raise the alarm in a way that is different from the existing ways of raising the alarm, if say a male rapist or murderer walked in to a womens rest room and attacked? Who is going to come running, that wouldn't have come running for a regular male attacker?

I mean, are you proposing armed guards hanging around to enforce this? Because if not, it's the status quo.

A flip side argument might be that if a transwoman was in the rest room when a bio male came in and attacked, you'd have a physically stronger ally in there with you.

That's the part I'm having trouble with, here. You sound like you treat this as opening the door to a unique threat, and giving an attacker some advantage. I don't see it as any different from the threat in the here and now since a violent attacker is indifferent to permissions or signs on a door.
 
Last edited:
I thought it was a very good article but it hinges, IMHO, on the definition of mental disorder: "a lack or alternation in a function possessed by most healthy individuals that causes demonstrable harm."
Harm is a bit vague, the DSM-5 is much less so.

What I find strange about that Neurologica article is that (at least for now) medical ethics are such that hormonal and surgical interventions are justified in terms of averting dysphoria, that is, "significant distress or disability in social, occupational, or other important activities." These are the "demonstrable harms" which make it okay for endocrinologists and surgeons to make GNC people into lifelong patients. Novella seems to minimize the existence and role of those harms in the decision making process, but it's hard to tell since he doesn't provide an example of what it is like to have a trans identity while at the same time being free of any diagnosable disorder which might require treatment.
 
Last edited:
Apologies. You often drop a bunch of replies at once on multiple threads and tbh, I sometimes think I responded to you when I hadn't, or confused with responding to you on another thread. My paperwork and returning phone calls responses are similarly disorganized. Also, "literally everyone" was meant as the kids use it today, meaning "not at all literally everyone but at least a couple". I try to stay relatable to the kids.
I really try not to, and I've reduced the number of posts I make when I'm behind. But the reality is that I have very limited time to engage in discussions, and sometimes things move faster than I realized. Like sometimes this thread will have four new posts in a week... sometimes it will have 340.
 
Honestly, female posters here seem to spend an awful lot of time in gang public showers with each other. I have never as an adult taken a group shower with guys for any reason. I dont know which one of us has the unusual lifestyle, here, from the "commonly showering with strangers" approach.
Not so much "gang showers" as areas with communal space. Like we're not literally sharing a shower head, nor are the showers generally completely open to view - there are usually curtains or something. But they're also small spaces, and it's not like there's room for us to go in fully clothed, strip down, shower, dry, then put on a different set of clothing. It's not totally self-contained.

Most of the showers I've used in gyms, yoga studios, high school, college, etc. end up having a changing area and a row of showers. You go to your locker and you strip down, put your dirty clothes in the locker, and wrap a towel around yourself. Then you go to the shower, clean up, and dry off. Drying off can sometimes be done in the shower stall, but a lot of times you end up bumping the curtain or having to step out for at least some of the drying. Then you wrap a towel around yourself again, go back to your locker, and you get dressed.

There almost always ends up being a fair bit of body exposure while we're undressing and dressing. In every shower room I've been in since high school, I end up seeing other female's nude or mostly nude bodies. Because we're all female, we don't view each other as risks... end even the lesbians don't ogle each other because we all know it makes us uncomfortable and we're all respectful of that.
 
I really try not to, and I've reduced the number of posts I make when I'm behind. But the reality is that I have very limited time to engage in discussions, and sometimes things move faster than I realized. Like sometimes this thread will have four new posts in a week... sometimes it will have 340.
I hear you. When you pointed out I had not replied to you, my alerts drag down menu had something like 16 alerts with your account attached. It can be overwhelming, especially because you are actually saying something that deserves to be thought about before responding.
 
Not so much "gang showers" as areas with communal space. Like we're not literally sharing a shower head, nor are the showers generally completely open to view - there are usually curtains or something. But they're also small spaces, and it's not like there's room for us to go in fully clothed, strip down, shower, dry, then put on a different set of clothing. It's not totally self-contained.

Most of the showers I've used in gyms, yoga studios, high school, college, etc. end up having a changing area and a row of showers. You go to your locker and you strip down, put your dirty clothes in the locker, and wrap a towel around yourself. Then you go to the shower, clean up, and dry off. Drying off can sometimes be done in the shower stall, but a lot of times you end up bumping the curtain or having to step out for at least some of the drying. Then you wrap a towel around yourself again, go back to your locker, and you get dressed.

There almost always ends up being a fair bit of body exposure while we're undressing and dressing. In every shower room I've been in since high school, I end up seeing other female's nude or mostly nude bodies. Because we're all female, we don't view each other as risks... end even the lesbians don't ogle each other because we all know it makes us uncomfortable and we're all respectful of that.
It's funny you say that, because I remember training with a guy I knew to be gay, and we got changed in the same men's locker area. I never gave it a thought, even though we were pretty much stripped down putting supporters and cups on and stuff. It's just a kind of asexual vibe.

I fully sympathize with the idea of a pretend trans woman getting off by going in the women's changing area specifically to get himself off though. In fact, I can't imagine a largish group of kids/teens/ adults not doing so. That's actually a stronger argument (to me) than the suggestion of murderers who are foiled by a rule or sign.
 
How do you raise the alarm in a way that is different from the existing ways of raising the alarm, if say a male rapist or murderer walked in to a womens rest room and attacked? Who is going to come running, that wouldn't have come running for a regular male attacker?
There's attacks, and then there's harrassment, verbal abuse, indecent exposure, groping, voyeurism ... a whole range of offences which some men like to inflict upon women. Anything less than an attack which causes injury and those offences can be hard to prove, because it's usually just "he said, she said" - except if they occur in a female only safe spaces, where the man has no excuse to be at all. That's why they are the only places where females are safe from such ... attentions. When any man can enter such spaces, commit such offences, and then say "She's lying, I'm trans and she's a transphobe" when she complains, there will no longer be any such thing as female safe spaces.
 
I know. I'm relaying what a trans woman told me about her own misunderstanding of what she was as a teen
So yeah. I know one transgender identified male who expressed their dysphoria in the same fashion. Even to the extent of constantly being a bit surprised to look down and see a penis.

The thing is, that this is what it used to be expressed as - that's what it was thirty years ago, and it's what a whole lot of people still assume it to be. But it's not that anymore. Not even remotely. Even when it was that, we were all largely misinformed - we tended to assume that all of those transsexuals were 1) attracted to males and 2) had genital surgery. Turned out that even then, less than 20% of them had genital surgery. And at present, the majority of males who identify as transgender right now are sexually attracted to females. They refer to themselves as "lesbians" and there have been multiple cases where same-sex attracted females end up being pressured to have sex with males who have gendery feels, and are told that they're bigots if they refuse to take some dick. Or they get told that it's not a male penis, it's a female organ, it's a "ladydick" or even an "oversized clitoris".

I know it sounds like I'm making this up, becuase it's so absurd and wrong. But I'm not - go google it if you don't believe me. Hell, Planned Parenthood had a seminar on "The Cotton Ceiling" so that transgender identified males who are attracted to females could learn techniques to be accepted as sexual partners by lesbians.

It's easy to think "well that's so ridiculous it must be made up". But it's not, and what we end up discussing in this thread is far LESS crazy than what is actually out there in reality.
 
There's attacks, and then there's harrassment, verbal abuse, indecent exposure, groping, voyeurism ... a whole range of offences which some men like to inflict upon women. Anything less than an attack which causes injury and those offences can be hard to prove, because it's usually just "he said, she said" - except if they occur in a female only safe spaces, where the man has no excuse to be at all. That's why they are the only places where females are safe from such ... attentions. When any man can enter such spaces, commit such offences, and then say "She's lying, I'm trans and she's a transphobe" when she complains, there will no longer be any such thing as female safe spaces.
Right, I get that. What I'm arguing is that the murderer/rapist fear of trans woman access to safe spaces is maybe not realistic, or at least any more than it is right now. But the perv angle is easily (and very likely) going to be exploited.
 
The post I had asked about that prompted all this was to your assertion that allowing the less than 1% of transwomen in would jeopardize 100% of females in their safe spaces. What I wondered about is if 100% of women or anything remotely close to that would be faced with a new threat.
Your question, your entire premise, relies on there being some category of "true trans" that we can all tell is genuinely 100% legit transsexual. So I'll direct you back to some of the fundamental questions that kicked this thread off and has kept it going for 15 chapters.

How do you tell the difference between a) a genuinely true trans male, b) a delusional or mistaken male, and c) an opportunistic predator?

How do you tell the difference between a) a safe male who would never ever harm a female, b) a male who views themselves as safe and doesn't realize they're causing harm or intimidation, and c) a predator intentionally harming a female?

Let's say that less than 1% of wolves are actually sheep in the wrong body. How are sheep supposed to tell which wolves are internally sheep and which are not? How are the sheep supposed to determine whether the wolf in sheep's clothing is one of the safe wolves who is just living their life as a sheep, and which of them are mimicking sheep in order to opportunistically prey on them?
 
Oh, don't get me wrong- I'm still staunchly in favor of bio sex segregation for safe spaces. It's a simple safety and even a basic modesty concern, and a totally, inarguably valid one.

But at the same time, I am acquainted with one transwoman who is sincere as all hell, and I want the place to be just as non-exclusive to her as it is to anyone else. So I'm trying to work out if there even can be a middle ground.

If there can't, as Pixel42 seems to think, then I guess we have to defer to pure sex segregation. It's gotta be safety first. I would think a medically transitioned woman would be "ok" in a women's rest area though. Surely they are demonstrating sincerity and not just being freaks and pervs? It's no small commitment to the act, if it were an act.
Look, there's a policy approach and a practical approach here.

From a policy perspective, I have come around to being 100% no tolerance single-sex when posted as such. If a company or venue wants to decide ALL of their spaces are mixed sex, fine, as long as that's clearly posted so that consumers know what they're getting into. But if it says "Women's Shower" it means FEMALES ONLY regardless of how anyone identifies. That's the only policy I will support.

We've gone over the reasons for this across several pages. The very short version is that we can't tell whether someone is "safe" or not, whether they're "in the wrong body" or just cosplaying their sexual fantasy. And on top of all of that risk exposure... nobody else can consent on my behalf*.

There's also a practical approach. And while it sounds trite, the practical approach is that if females cannot tell that they are male, then we cannot tell. That doesn't make it right, it doesn't make it an entitlement - it just makes it successful sexual mimicry. If a transsexual male has had enough surgery done, and has practices the movements, gait, and common behaviors of females well enough that nobody suspects they're males... well, then they're going to be able to use whatever the hell bathroom or shower or sauna they want. Again, that doesn't make it morally acceptable.

The problem is that just because Blair White might go unchallenged because they successfully pass as female doesn't suggest that Eddie Izzard shouldn't be challenged - Izzard doesn't pass at all, not even a tiny bit.

* As an aside, the idea of consenting for someone else got used as a justification for multiple of the males who raped Gisele Pelicot while they were drugged - their rationale for why it was okay for them to have sex with Gisele without Gisele's knowledge was that Gisele's spouse consented for them. They asserted that Dominique had given consent for them to have sex with Gisele, so they thought it was okay.
 
Your question, your entire premise, relies on there being some category of "true trans" that we can all tell is genuinely 100% legit transsexual. So I'll direct you back to some of the fundamental questions that kicked this thread off and has kept it going for 15 chapters.

How do you tell the difference between a) a genuinely true trans male, b) a delusional or mistaken male, and c) an opportunistic predator?

How do you tell the difference between a) a safe male who would never ever harm a female, b) a male who views themselves as safe and doesn't realize they're causing harm or intimidation, and c) a predator intentionally harming a female?

Let's say that less than 1% of wolves are actually sheep in the wrong body. How are sheep supposed to tell which wolves are internally sheep and which are not? How are the sheep supposed to determine whether the wolf in sheep's clothing is one of the safe wolves who is just living their life as a sheep, and which of them are mimicking sheep in order to opportunistically prey on them?
Right, and they are fair questions. My knee jerk is to say use the same standard we use everywhere else. How do you know the UPS guy at the door is not a predator, or the cop pulling you over? You assume people are normal until you have good reason to believe otherwise.

But on the flip, there's just no way every Beavis and Butthead nitwit in the country is not going to exploit this for jollies.

I don't have the answers, but I lean strongly towards the bio line. Innies in one space, outies in the other. If you get medically transitioned, maybe you should qualify as the reverse of what you were born as?

Eta: also, I'm squirming a little at framing this as "how can WE tell?" It sounds like everyone is declaring themselves an enforcer, and all trans people are guilty till proven innocent. No one demands my papers to prove I'm not a rapist in any other situation.
 
Last edited:
Let me ask you a serious question. Do you understand that rape and murder are very serious violent crimes, commited by attackers who would have no qualms whatsoever, right here and right now, of walking into the "safe space" no matter what the sign on the door says? Do you seriously think a freaking murderer would stop and say "damn, she's in the women's room. I can't go in there. Foiled again"?
This is a fallacy.

I get where you're coming from, but you're failing to understand that most criminals are opportunistic predators. Murders choose locations where the likelihood of getting caught is very, very low. So do rapists. The only ones who don't are the actual psychotics who are delusional and lack a solid grasp of reality. All the rest of them actually do consider the location and the chance of apprehension.

Just try a bit of an intellectual exercise here. Compare two scenarios for a would-be rapist.

In the first scenario, the female restroom is considered off-limits. It is understood that if a male enters the restroom, and females raise a cry, someone will come to the female's aid and evict the male.

In the second scenario, the female restroom is available for anyone who says they're a 'woman', regardless of what their actual sex is. There's no requirement to pass, there's not even a strong expectation that they dress in female-typical attire. Pretty much all they have to do is throw on some lipstick and say out-loud words "I'm a transwoman"... and they're deemed to be allowed into the female restroom on the basis of their professed gender identity. Not only are they allowed, but now it's understood that if a female complains, that female is being a bigot and will face social repercussion - maybe even legal ones.

Which of those two scenarios is going to be preferred by an opportunistic rapist?

Now let's take it a step further, and instead of a rapist we're talking about a voyeur or an exhibitionist - a peeper or a flasher. Which scenario do you think they will prefer?
 
There's attacks, and then there's harrassment, verbal abuse, indecent exposure, groping, voyeurism ... a whole range of offences which some men like to inflict upon women. Anything less than an attack which causes injury and those offences can be hard to prove, because it's usually just "he said, she said" - except if they occur in a female only safe spaces, where the man has no excuse to be at all. That's why they are the only places where females are safe from such ... attentions. When any man can enter such spaces, commit such offences, and then say "She's lying, I'm trans and she's a transphobe" when she complains, there will no longer be any such thing as female safe spaces.
That's what I am arguing. There are violent attackers, and pervs. I don't think there would be any difference regarding violence, but pervs would be having a field day.

Most here seem to agree straight self ID is unworkable. I agree. What I'm trying to work out is whether accommodations can be reasonably made for trans women who aren't Hannibal Lechter. I am confident they exist. Some here aren't.
 
Back
Top Bottom