I'd rather not continue this particular line if discussion. There's probably 5-10 threads where it better fits over in Political Discussions, and there's a reason I'm largely starting out of PD. My desire for political forth and back in this venue is amply satisfied with mutual accusations of ideological bias clouding each other's analyses in science topics.
I will however say this much: you truly underestimate the power of doors!
I'm probably Europeansplaining as much as mansplaining here, but granted, I need to tread lightly here. I'm not saying doors remove all points of contention, but that they will take out much of the heat from that particular argument, and I fail to understand why anyone would think not having them is a good idea.
Hey, I like doors too; but as I said, I know women who find them an inadequate substitute for actual ladies' rooms even if they help a bit. As far as Europeansplaining goes, I wonder. I'm aware the trend of converting public restrooms from sexed to "gender neutral" has gone a lot further in several European countries than it has in the U.S.,
I don't know if that's true. My impression is rather that gender/sex segregated restrooms were never as universal in the first place. Office buildings may be another story due to workplace regulations, but it seems that in many countries, for many types of venues, separate restrooms are/were more a question of choosing to accommodate costumer expectations than a legal requirement. Hostels or cheap hotels without individual toilets often have/ had just one set per floor, sport clubs or some (smaller) restaurants also may only have one set. I've never heard anyone complain about this as being anything more than - at most - slightly awkward. Doors magic, I guess!
but just how much input did the European mostly male policy makers who brought about that trend take from European women before deciding on that "solution"?
What policy makers? Aren't you all for individual businesses deciding for themselves, within the law, how to best accommodate their customers?
Every time I hear European men claim it doesn't bother their women to have to use the (let's be frank) men's room, I can't help but be reminded of the third-world tribal elders who claim authority to speak for their cultures when they argue Westerners barging in promoting female equality are racist imperialists.
See above - I've never heard a feminist critique of non-segregated restrooms in those places were they always existed, why would it become a feminist issue when a few more places decide to have them?
And it's not clear to me why you or I or any man should get a vote on what qualifies as a "solution" to the problem that the existence of private spaces for women is incompatible with progressives' universal approach to "solving" conflicts of interest between different people: categorizing those people into groups and then checking to see which group outranks which on the progressive stack.
I don't know about "progressives", I'm just one guy from Austria. Can you try to stick to arguments this one guy has made?
I do. I didn't say that was your approach; I said that was the problem you're proposing "the solution" to.
The bathroom problem currently plaguing America was entirely created by our progressives putting their own self-congratulation-as-social-policy priorities ahead of what the majority of the American people want. Back when the men using women's rooms were pre-op transsexuals fulfilling their "live as a woman for a year" requirement to get a psychiatrist to approve them for sex-change operations, conflicts were so rare that normal courtesy was enough to manage them. It was the collective decision within the progressive subculture to reformulate admission of men to ladies' rooms from a privilege granted by women to pre-ops into a right granted by progressives to every non-op man who self-IDs as gender dysphoric, with the inevitable consequence that cis-male predators were also granted that right, that caused conflicts to become so common the authorities got called on to intervene. You say "the solution" is doors. I'd say "the solution" is for the progressives to crawl back under their rock; but since that's an even more unrealistic fantasy than expecting women to be satisfied by a slightly taller temporary visual blockage between themselves and the cis-male predators waiting for them at the sink,
I don't know why "at the sink" would be a more convenient place for predators to wait than the staircase or the parkinh lot, or the office itself during after hours when only a few people doing overtime that particular day remain. And if that isn't enough to put you at rest, doors magic kicks in again: doors make it so that installing cctv at the sink is no more an invasion of privacy than it is at any other place where we already agreed to suffer it.
my back-up solution is for the rest of us to grow a spine and stand up to the progressives' bullying.
So you're proposing to go back to an idealised past 'when the men using women's rooms were pre-op transsexuals fulfilling their "live as a woman for a year" requirement', and insinuating that my preferred solution involves "every non-op man who self-IDs as gender dysphoric" going to the ladies' room? I don't know where you're getting that from. We wouldn't be having this argument if all that Emily or others in that camp demanded was that people with gender dysphoria only known to those they share it with, who would be inconspicuous as cis-males, better use the men's - that's exactly my position! I think I specifically said that, to the extent this needs to be regulated at all, the relevant bisection should be "go wherever you'll cause the least fuss". I was talking about people using HRT or (not fully passing) post-ops individuals or people with partial androgen insensitivity. People who wouldn't easily pass for cis-women when you look closely but who'd arguably stand out more in a group of typical cis-males. Saying "the women's is for women only, and women are people with a uterus and a vagina" which seems to be Emily's position, would have them sent to the men's, and saying that's not an optimal solution implies nothing about where merely self-ID'd transwomen should go. It also raises the problem of people like
@Loren Pechtel 's SIL - in practice, saying trans women should categorically stay clear of the women's implies that a cis woman of unusually masculine appearance can be asked to show her genitals at the sink to anyone suspecting she's trans - and I don't want to live in a world where that's the case!
I will say, however, that what you're saying did apply to Emily, mutatis mutandi as the Romans say: if allowing people who are not unambiguously women into the ladies' causes discomfort or reduces the feeling of safety of some cis women, send those weirdos to the gents' and everyone else and their needs can ....
False dilemma fallacy. You talk as though "people who are not unambiguously women" are interchangeable parts and we have no option for dealing with their needs other than one-size-fits-all.
I don't know where you're getting that from. Can you elaborate?
We men are perfectly capable of letting women tell us which classes of "people who are not unambiguously women" they want to let into the ladies' rooms and which they want to send to the gents'. But taking instructions from women seems to be an affront to our masculinity.
Emily isn't "women". Emily is Emily. There sure are other women you think like Emily, but neither of us knows how numerous they are and pretending otherwise is dishonest.
A a matter of fact, trans women and non-binary people cause as much discomfort in the gents', and as I'm sure Emily will agree, toxic masculinity is a thing. Men who react to that kind of discomfort with violence are not rare. Ffs, men in Western countries were frequently assaulted out of the blue simply for having long hair within the lifetime if all major 2024 US president candidates. Things have gotten better since then, but if you think they have gotten to where the gents' is a safe place for trans women, I've got some prime property at a real bargain northeast of downtown Chicago you might be interested in (visitations start in December).
Oh for the love of god! Non-binary people aren't safe from men in the men's room and we're supposed to believe that letting them use the
women's gender-neutral room is going to make them safe, why? Because the gender-neutral room used to be a women's room? The room formerly known as women's will remain safe because the toxic masculine people made uncomfortable by non-binary people will no longer react with violence because the toxic masculine people now allowed into that room will experience a change of perspective once they're in a restroom that doesn't say "Gents" on the door?
Are we talking about giving up sex/ gender segregated restrooms, or are we talking about letting (some) trans women into the ladies'? If it's the latter, the answer is easy: Toxic masculine people won't react with violence to the presence of non-binary people in the "ladies' and sissies'" (as they'd likely call it in their head) because they won't be there - going there would make them a sissy! Toxic masculine people will go to the gents' as long as there is a gents'. Toxic masculine people in general think of themselves as upright citizens standing their ground against an assault on their identity (like the rest of us), not as predators going out of their way to seek out weaker members of society to victimise. If we force non-binary people with male v reproductive anatomy to go to the gents, we put them under their nose right in a place where they expect their masculinity to be confirmed and reinforced.
Yes, I know, this isn't just about discomfort but also about the fear of would-be predators using their professed gender to enter female spaces. But let's be honest, if you think a that kind of person would be prevented by a door sign, or by a law clarifying what that door sign means, let's talk about that property again.
If Emily won't buy that snake-oil from Loren, why would I buy it from you? Would-be predators try to be inconspicuous. A door sign that's respected by nearly everyone is a door sign that makes non-compliers conspicuous.
@Bomb#20 : wanted to add, ran into timeout, put it where you think it fits best. May also be relevant for
@Emily Lake :
Whether the do-least-harm solution is sending trans women and people with partial androgen insensitivity to the ladies, or to the gents, or letting them pick based on their individual experience of where they are most welcome, or forcing them into a life or seclusion by barring them from both its an empirical question. Whether we care about them enough to implement measures that will make their life (much) better even if they make other people's life a little worse is a political question. The answer tu neither is fully determined by our understanding of the biology of sex - which I personally find is great because it allows us to discuss the matter as a apolitical one even if we disagree about the peripherally related political questions.
"Make other people's lives a little worse". Belittling the harm to the people you propose to throw under the bus is rarely a sign that you're achieving the do-least-harm solution. Girls are skipping school, or dehydrating themselves, to avoid having to use the boys' rooms now labeled "gender neutral", but it's boys visually indistinguishable from typical boys, with gender dysphoria known only to those they share it with, who are "forced into a life of seclusion".
If you remember any place I talked about "typical boys, with gender dysphoria known only to those they share it with", I'd appreciate a link or quote.
I also wonder whether you have any reason to believe that "girls skipping school, or dehydrating themselves" to avoid sharing a restroom with 3 individuals out of 1000 pupils who self-ID as girls though you wouldn't guess is a thing that exists in the presence of doors anywhere in the world.