Split Gendered spaces, split from Drag Shows

[lostone]

A so-called trans male who rapes women in showers is not really a trans, but a bisexual. One who truly identifies as trans would not be interested in a woman. So this issue is a case of identity fraud. The problem in that case, is not the trans, but their phonies who claim to be trans.

I don’t agree: I think an individual can be a trans woman AND attracted to other women. I think a lot are.

That would make them bisexual. Which is what I said.

 

[TomC]

Defend Our Kids TX

So group of busy body Karens and Kevins have created a website where scheduled drag show can be reported, and presumably interfered with.

Be a real shame if they were flooded with false reports of scheduled shows, maybe at private parties at the homes of right-wing christian nationalists and politicians. Or church events at churches that practice politics but still take their tax benefits.

Or use your imagination.

Could there be a thread split between this and the trans issue?

Thanks in advance.
Tom

 

[Toni]

A so-called trans male who rapes women in showers is not really a trans, but a bisexual. One who truly identifies as trans would not be interested in a woman. So this issue is a case of identity fraud. The problem in that case, is not the trans, but their phonies who claim to be trans.

I don’t agree: I think an individual can be a trans woman AND attracted to other women. I think a lot are.

That would make them bisexual. Which is what I said.

No, bisexual is if one is attracted to males and females.

 

[TomC]

No, bisexual is if one is attracted to males and females.

Trust me when I say,

Things aren't always that simple.
Tom

 

[Toni]

No, bisexual is if one is attracted to males and females.

Trust me when I say,

Things aren't always that simple.
Tom

I definitely get that as well.

 

[Emily Lake]

My stance is that ALL persons deserve to be protected from likely attacks, sexual or otherwise, regardless of the sex or gender of victim or attacker.

PERIOD.

Setting up congregate spaces in a way that minimizes or better, eliminates the likelihood of attacks--by anyone!--is what should be done. Doing so means that one does not need to be focused on whether someone is faking being a transwoman or not. Because it's much more likely that there are cis women in say, a prison setting, who are predisposed towards being violent towards others, including other women than than it is that there are fake transwomen in the prison setting waiting to attack cis women. Of course, the larger threat remains male guards.

Are you aware that one of the cornerstone elements of aiding developing countries is to provide sex-separated spaces for toileting and changing in schools, so that girls can safely attain an education?

Are you aware that the rate of assault of women in unisex changing spaces is significantly higher than the rate of assault in single-sex spaces?

If you have a sure-fire way to set up spaces that allow for female interaction while also ensuring the safety of everyone from assaults and voyeurism, I'm all ears. Otherwise, it's simply wishes. Beyond that, it's wishes that males of the mammalian class not have testosterone.

 

[Emily Lake]

I'm not interested in your challenge. I was discussing Metaphor's statements in this and in other threads.

Your premise is that sex is firmly determined at conception or shortly thereafter. In fact, this is likely not the case and certainly there are exceptions which have been noted throughout history, and found in many cultures, some of which have been far more accepting that traditional western culture.

How do you think babies get made?

 

[Jarhyn]

hey encounter a naked stranger with a penis in a place where they do not expect to see one

It is exactly the expectation to not see a penis in a public locker room for all women, which is at issue here. Why should you be able to expect that? IT is like being able to  exoect there to be no black people by the white people ATM.

In your home? It's expected because utter privacy for every individual is the expectation there. Seeing someone, anyone in the shower next to me without pants on* at home is cause for me to rip down the shower curtain, drape them, and then beat them until they stop moving.

*Except as invited.

Because until a couple of years ago, that's EXACTLY what anyone and everyone would expect. It is STILL what I would expect. An exception would be if the gym informed all members and visitors that there were presurgical trans individuals using the facilities and they had a right to be there.

When trans people are as common as black people, get back to me.

Your described reaction to a naked stranger in your shower at home? That's EXACTLY how most women would react to finding a naked stranger with a penis next to them in the shower--at home or in the gym. Because they don't expect to find such a person and the immediate perception would be that such a person intends them harm.

And until some decades ago, I described already what white people thought they could expect as per bank tellers and drinking fountains and so on.

White people have rightly been told "get over it, that shit is racist.

And let's be frank, a LOT of white people felt REALLY strongly about it. So strongly that when those black kids "predisposed to criminality" were in white people schools, there were riots!

There was more vocal resistance to change there than there was to this. Way more. It was very serious business.

The solution was not to defer to prejudice, but to reject it even though there would be unrest.

It’s not prejudice for women to expect to see only female appearing bodies in female only spaces when people might not be fully clothed.

It is not prejudice to be startled or apprehensive or frightened or even angry or traumatized when you encounter a naked stranger with a penis in a designated female only space, especially if you are yourself unclothed.

Everyone has the right to privacy. Everyone has the right to feel safe.

I am NOT advocating for excluding trans individuals from any place, including dressing rooms. I’m advocating for universal private dressing rooms and showers.

Yes it is. It is prejudice to demand "female appearing only" spaces.

Just like it is prejudice to demand "white appearing only places".

The existence of the space such a that it is divided on some sort of appearance rather than self-selection is prejudicial.

It is absolutely prejudice to be frightened or apprehensive or angry when a white person encounters a black person in a "whites only" space: the existence of the "whites only space" is itself prejudicial.

I advocate similarly for "singleton privacy spaces", but I won't for a second pretend that prejudice is not absolutely born at the demand for a separation of spaces on the basis of mere appearance.

I continue to think that the proper division is not some imaginary boundary between "male" and "female" as judged by genital appearance at birth, but rather "doesn't care" and "does care" with respect to others seeing or seeing others' genitals.

 

[Jarhyn]

The folks who say stuff like "transwomen are women" are systematically unable to explain what they mean by the word "women".

No, we simply understand that some concepts, like "woman" and "furry" are fundamentally arbitrary, and that even while some people have tendencies that naturally lead them to adoption of such cultural systems, it is incorrect to gate participation on comorbidities to those who have such tendencies.

As we have discussed widely, you are also systematically unable to define "woman".

Adult female of the human species.

So four imaginary classifiers put together still makes an imaginary classifier.

Each of these things you describe are imaginary.

There is no reality to "adult" beyond some arbitrary quantity of time past some arbitrary event.

There is no reality to "female" beyond some statistical mode, something that does not actually exist as an immediate article.

There is no reality to "human" as a species. The selection of common ancestry by which the tree is drawn is itself arbitrary.

All "species" are similarly arbitrarily drawn, for all we can place most things on one side or the other of such arbitrary boundaries.

It is something you are systematically unable to define in a real way because there is no reality to such arbitrations.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes, exposing your naked self is legally considered assault. I have no idea what you are talking about with the Klan robe scenario unless you are talking about your own fantasies.

The Klan robe bit was showing a very offensive view. We have no legal protection against seeing things that offend us.

No, me seeing penises in random public places or in situations where I expected that there would be penises did not cause me any harm.

Yes, being surprised by a naked body with a penis in a women only space IS the issue.

No it is NOT reasonable to expect women to just assume that the naked stranger next to them in the shower is a trans woman and no threat to them.

No it is not reasonable to expect women to be ok with some naked stranger with a penis to see them undressed in a shower or locker room and to make the assumption that it’s only a trans woman and not someone who might be s threat.

You're still only showing that it's wrong because we don't do it.

What kind of obsession do you have with open dressing rooms and showers? Why are private showers and dressing rooms not perfectly reasonable?

I'm fine with private stalls. Where I have a problem is when the whole area is segregated--what is someone trans supposed to do? What is someone with an opposite-sex caregiver supposed to do? (I have experienced the latter. My in-laws ran into the problem repeatedly.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Really? Because if the government mandates that pre/nonsurgical transwomen must be allowed in the same public showers as women, then the government isn't just sanctioning sexual assault but mandating it.

Mandating it?

No link between trans-inclusive policies and bathroom safety, study finds

There is no evidence that letting transgender people use public facilities that align with their gender identity increases safety risks, a UCLA study finds.

www.nbcnews.com

Threat = zero.

Because exposing yourself to someone who is not a willing participant is sexual assault. Which women, apparently, are expected to tolerate.

Strangely enough, Vermont doesn't seem to see it that way at all. They sensibly separate nudity (legal) from flashing (illegal) and recognize only the latter is sexual assault. Once again, it doesn't cause a problem. (Note that some cities have their own laws, I'm only talking about the state law.)

There is no reason that all showers and dressing rooms in any gym or similar facility are not outfitted with private stalls with doors that provide privacy for whoever is using them. I realize that this is an adjustment for a lot of men but too bad. Your need/desire for the comradery of shared nudity in gym lockerrooms and showers should not trump women's need/desire for safety and comfort.

Black's need for restrooms shouldn't trump white's need for safety and comfort.

Pretty sure that’s not what you mean.

Women’s restrooms have stalls with doors on them. They offer all users privacy.

We are not talking about restrooms. We are talking about dressing rooms and showers where women are naked.

And I am suggesting mandatory stalls with doors for dressing and showering and that such should be universal fir make and female spaces.

It is disgusting to insist that asserting a woman’s right to privacy is equivalent to Jim Crow.

Shame on you all.

Calling it disgusting doesn't address the point that it's the same situation.

And while I feel places should be free to put in private stalls I don't think they should be mandated.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Come to think of it, my great grandmother would have been pretty goddamned upset if she had walked into a gym locker room and found white and black women changing together.

Playing the race card is starting to look like Godwin's Law.

If you don't like something because it interferes with your preferences, compare it to Jim Crow.
Tom

If it's invalid show what's wrong, don't simply attack it. Nobody's even tried to show what's wrong with the comparison--which strongly suggests we are right.

 

[Toni]

Yes, exposing your naked self is legally considered assault. I have no idea what you are talking about with the Klan robe scenario unless you are talking about your own fantasies.

The Klan robe bit was showing a very offensive view. We have no legal protection against seeing things that offend us.

No, me seeing penises in random public places or in situations where I expected that there would be penises did not cause me any harm.

Yes, being surprised by a naked body with a penis in a women only space IS the issue.

No it is NOT reasonable to expect women to just assume that the naked stranger next to them in the shower is a trans woman and no threat to them.

No it is not reasonable to expect women to be ok with some naked stranger with a penis to see them undressed in a shower or locker room and to make the assumption that it’s only a trans woman and not someone who might be s threat.

You're still only showing that it's wrong because we don't do it.

What kind of obsession do you have with open dressing rooms and showers? Why are private showers and dressing rooms not perfectly reasonable?

I'm fine with private stalls. Where I have a problem is when the whole area is segregated--what is someone trans supposed to do? What is someone with an opposite-sex caregiver supposed to do? (I have experienced the latter. My in-laws ran into the problem repeatedly.)

Again: I certainly am NOT talking about being offended. I do not find anything about the human body offensive, although I do think that some things people might choose to do with their own human body to be offensive (crapping on the dinner table, for example is not just unhygienic but also offensive). Walking about with your genitals exposed (any genitals) is often but not always offensive, depending on the circumstances and sometimes is indicative of acute intoxication or acute mental illness. Not always, of course. Sometimes, walking around with your genitals exposed is perfectly acceptable and even expected. Context matters.

I'm talking about something that YOU do NOT have any experience with and apparently are incapable of having anything resembling empathy with: Women are constantly in some state of surveillance of their surroundings and of their own appearance and behavior, looking out for danger. Most of us can keep that need for surveillance to a minimum in most circumstances but yes, women are more attuned to signs of danger for themselves and for any offspring they might have. It's hardwired into us by nature and society has taught us that we must constantly monitor our surroundings, our dress, our behavior because if we make any kind of mistake, however innocent, we might be attacked and if we are attacked, every single thing about our dress, our behavior, our surroundings will be used against us in a court of law, if it gets that far. Most of the time, it does not get that far, even if it is reported, which most of the time it is not.

This is not a burden that you ever have to consider or bear and it is clearly a burden you do not have any ability to empathize with. You seem to conflate your feelings and your experiences and your beliefs and insecurities with universal and completely rational. You're wrong.

You seem to believe that all women should simply be OK with having to make the instantaneous evaluation of a naked stranger in a dressing room or shower while they, themselves, are naked and correctly coming up with the evaluation that this is obviously a trans woman who is of course no threat to them at all. I suppose in your POV, this would include if the naked individual was showing (however involuntary) signs of sexual arousal. Because of course women know that men never, ever, ever intrude on women when they are expecting privacy and are not fully clothed.* *Sarcasm because of course women know that they can be attacked anywhere at any time, whatever they are wearing or doing and even if there are other people around.

No one can make such judgments immediately and no one should be expected to do so. It is arrogant and callous for men to expect women to immediately accept any individual in their dressing rooms and showers and to know that they are in no danger whatsoever from naked strangers with penises and have no need to feel modest, either.

Thank you for bringing up a situation I had not mentioned when having private stalls would be extremely helpful: when one needs to aid someone who needs help dressing, toileting, showering.

 

[Toni]

Really? Because if the government mandates that pre/nonsurgical transwomen must be allowed in the same public showers as women, then the government isn't just sanctioning sexual assault but mandating it.

Mandating it?

No link between trans-inclusive policies and bathroom safety, study finds

There is no evidence that letting transgender people use public facilities that align with their gender identity increases safety risks, a UCLA study finds.

www.nbcnews.com

Threat = zero.

Because exposing yourself to someone who is not a willing participant is sexual assault. Which women, apparently, are expected to tolerate.

Strangely enough, Vermont doesn't seem to see it that way at all. They sensibly separate nudity (legal) from flashing (illegal) and recognize only the latter is sexual assault. Once again, it doesn't cause a problem. (Note that some cities have their own laws, I'm only talking about the state law.)

There is no reason that all showers and dressing rooms in any gym or similar facility are not outfitted with private stalls with doors that provide privacy for whoever is using them. I realize that this is an adjustment for a lot of men but too bad. Your need/desire for the comradery of shared nudity in gym lockerrooms and showers should not trump women's need/desire for safety and comfort.

Black's need for restrooms shouldn't trump white's need for safety and comfort.

Pretty sure that’s not what you mean.

Women’s restrooms have stalls with doors on them. They offer all users privacy.

We are not talking about restrooms. We are talking about dressing rooms and showers where women are naked.

And I am suggesting mandatory stalls with doors for dressing and showering and that such should be universal fir make and female spaces.

It is disgusting to insist that asserting a woman’s right to privacy is equivalent to Jim Crow.

Shame on you all.

Calling it disgusting doesn't address the point that it's the same situation.

And while I feel places should be free to put in private stalls I don't think they should be mandated.

It is FUCKING NOT the same situation. Which you would realize if you woke up and found a naked stranger with a penis in your bedroom.

What you are saying is that women have no reason to fear persons with penises and it is ridiculous to fear persons with penises if they are standing next to you, both of you naked. Fucking bullshit. Which you would realize if you EVER would have to deal with the situation yourself. Which you will not unless you wake up and find a naked stranger with a penis standing over you. But then, you have a gun, probably in your night stand. So it would be a double experiment: How does Loren react to being suddenly confronted by a naked stranger with a penis when he does not expect it and is in a vulnerable position? AND how good is Loren with his firearms?

 

[Politesse]

Yes, exposing your naked self is legally considered assault. I have no idea what you are talking about with the Klan robe scenario unless you are talking about your own fantasies.

The Klan robe bit was showing a very offensive view. We have no legal protection against seeing things that offend us.

No, me seeing penises in random public places or in situations where I expected that there would be penises did not cause me any harm.

Yes, being surprised by a naked body with a penis in a women only space IS the issue.

No it is NOT reasonable to expect women to just assume that the naked stranger next to them in the shower is a trans woman and no threat to them.

No it is not reasonable to expect women to be ok with some naked stranger with a penis to see them undressed in a shower or locker room and to make the assumption that it’s only a trans woman and not someone who might be s threat.

You're still only showing that it's wrong because we don't do it.

What kind of obsession do you have with open dressing rooms and showers? Why are private showers and dressing rooms not perfectly reasonable?

I'm fine with private stalls. Where I have a problem is when the whole area is segregated--what is someone trans supposed to do? What is someone with an opposite-sex caregiver supposed to do? (I have experienced the latter. My in-laws ran into the problem repeatedly.)

Again: I certainly am NOT talking about being offended. I do not find anything about the human body offensive, although I do think that some things people might choose to do with their own human body to be offensive (crapping on the dinner table, for example is not just unhygienic but also offensive). Walking about with your genitals exposed (any genitals) is often but not always offensive, depending on the circumstances and sometimes is indicative of acute intoxication or acute mental illness. Not always, of course. Sometimes, walking around with your genitals exposed is perfectly acceptable and even expected. Context matters.

I'm talking about something that YOU do NOT have any experience with and apparently are incapable of having anything resembling empathy with: Women are constantly in some state of surveillance of their surroundings and of their own appearance and behavior, looking out for danger. Most of us can keep that need for surveillance to a minimum in most circumstances but yes, women are more attuned to signs of danger for themselves and for any offspring they might have. It's hardwired into us by nature and society has taught us that we must constantly monitor our surroundings, our dress, our behavior because if we make any kind of mistake, however innocent, we might be attacked and if we are attacked, every single thing about our dress, our behavior, our surroundings will be used against us in a court of law, if it gets that far. Most of the time, it does not get that far, even if it is reported, which most of the time it is not.

This is not a burden that you ever have to consider or bear and it is clearly a burden you do not have any ability to empathize with. You seem to conflate your feelings and your experiences and your beliefs and insecurities with universal and completely rational. You're wrong.

You seem to believe that all women should simply be OK with having to make the instantaneous evaluation of a naked stranger in a dressing room or shower while they, themselves, are naked and correctly coming up with the evaluation that this is obviously a trans woman who is of course no threat to them at all. I suppose in your POV, this would include if the naked individual was showing (however involuntary) signs of sexual arousal. Because of course women know that men never, ever, ever intrude on women when they are expecting privacy and are not fully clothed.* *Sarcasm because of course women know that they can be attacked anywhere at any time, whatever they are wearing or doing and even if there are other people around.

No one can make such judgments immediately and no one should be expected to do so. It is arrogant and callous for men to expect women to immediately accept any individual in their dressing rooms and showers and to know that they are in no danger whatsoever from naked strangers with penises and have no need to feel modest, either.

Thank you for bringing up a situation I had not mentioned when having private stalls would be extremely helpful: when one needs to aid someone who needs help dressing, toileting, showering.

Are you ever going to address why you believe that you speak for all women, and that civil rights advocates are men? It seems most unjustified and unjustifiable to me.

 

[Politesse]

Really? Because if the government mandates that pre/nonsurgical transwomen must be allowed in the same public showers as women, then the government isn't just sanctioning sexual assault but mandating it.

Mandating it?

No link between trans-inclusive policies and bathroom safety, study finds

There is no evidence that letting transgender people use public facilities that align with their gender identity increases safety risks, a UCLA study finds.

www.nbcnews.com

Threat = zero.

Because exposing yourself to someone who is not a willing participant is sexual assault. Which women, apparently, are expected to tolerate.

Strangely enough, Vermont doesn't seem to see it that way at all. They sensibly separate nudity (legal) from flashing (illegal) and recognize only the latter is sexual assault. Once again, it doesn't cause a problem. (Note that some cities have their own laws, I'm only talking about the state law.)

There is no reason that all showers and dressing rooms in any gym or similar facility are not outfitted with private stalls with doors that provide privacy for whoever is using them. I realize that this is an adjustment for a lot of men but too bad. Your need/desire for the comradery of shared nudity in gym lockerrooms and showers should not trump women's need/desire for safety and comfort.

Black's need for restrooms shouldn't trump white's need for safety and comfort.

Pretty sure that’s not what you mean.

Women’s restrooms have stalls with doors on them. They offer all users privacy.

We are not talking about restrooms. We are talking about dressing rooms and showers where women are naked.

And I am suggesting mandatory stalls with doors for dressing and showering and that such should be universal fir make and female spaces.

It is disgusting to insist that asserting a woman’s right to privacy is equivalent to Jim Crow.

Shame on you all.

Calling it disgusting doesn't address the point that it's the same situation.

And while I feel places should be free to put in private stalls I don't think they should be mandated.

It is FUCKING NOT the same situation. Which you would realize if you woke up and found a naked stranger with a penis in your bedroom.

What you are saying is that women have no reason to fear persons with penises and it is ridiculous to fear persons with penises if they are standing next to you, both of you naked. Fucking bullshit. Which you would realize if you EVER would have to deal with the situation yourself. Which you will not unless you wake up and find a naked stranger with a penis standing over you. But then, you have a gun, probably in your night stand. So it would be a double experiment: How does Loren react to being suddenly confronted by a naked stranger with a penis when he does not expect it and is in a vulnerable position? AND how good is Loren with his firearms?

I would be very alarmed if I found a clown standing over my bed with a knife in the dead of night. That doesn't make it reasonable to outlaw clowns or knives in places where either are naturally expected.

 

[Toni]

Really? Because if the government mandates that pre/nonsurgical transwomen must be allowed in the same public showers as women, then the government isn't just sanctioning sexual assault but mandating it.

Mandating it?

No link between trans-inclusive policies and bathroom safety, study finds

There is no evidence that letting transgender people use public facilities that align with their gender identity increases safety risks, a UCLA study finds.

www.nbcnews.com

Threat = zero.

Because exposing yourself to someone who is not a willing participant is sexual assault. Which women, apparently, are expected to tolerate.

Strangely enough, Vermont doesn't seem to see it that way at all. They sensibly separate nudity (legal) from flashing (illegal) and recognize only the latter is sexual assault. Once again, it doesn't cause a problem. (Note that some cities have their own laws, I'm only talking about the state law.)

There is no reason that all showers and dressing rooms in any gym or similar facility are not outfitted with private stalls with doors that provide privacy for whoever is using them. I realize that this is an adjustment for a lot of men but too bad. Your need/desire for the comradery of shared nudity in gym lockerrooms and showers should not trump women's need/desire for safety and comfort.

Black's need for restrooms shouldn't trump white's need for safety and comfort.

Pretty sure that’s not what you mean.

Women’s restrooms have stalls with doors on them. They offer all users privacy.

We are not talking about restrooms. We are talking about dressing rooms and showers where women are naked.

And I am suggesting mandatory stalls with doors for dressing and showering and that such should be universal fir make and female spaces.

It is disgusting to insist that asserting a woman’s right to privacy is equivalent to Jim Crow.

Shame on you all.

Calling it disgusting doesn't address the point that it's the same situation.

And while I feel places should be free to put in private stalls I don't think they should be mandated.

It is FUCKING NOT the same situation. Which you would realize if you woke up and found a naked stranger with a penis in your bedroom.

What you are saying is that women have no reason to fear persons with penises and it is ridiculous to fear persons with penises if they are standing next to you, both of you naked. Fucking bullshit. Which you would realize if you EVER would have to deal with the situation yourself. Which you will not unless you wake up and find a naked stranger with a penis standing over you. But then, you have a gun, probably in your night stand. So it would be a double experiment: How does Loren react to being suddenly confronted by a naked stranger with a penis when he does not expect it and is in a vulnerable position? AND how good is Loren with his firearms?

I would be very alarmed if I found a clown standing over my bed with a knife in the dead of night. That doesn't make it reasonable to outlaw clowns or knives in places where either are naturally expected.

AFAIKT, no one is talking about outlawing trans people

The entire key to this is naturally expected. Context is everything.

If I were to walk into a dressing room and see a naked stranger with a penis, my first initial thought would be that I walked into the wrong dressing room, make profuse apologies and walk out. I'd check the signage and locate the women's dressing room. In the very small chance that the naked stranger with a penis was in the women's dressing area, I'd bring it up with management. I almost certainly wouldn't choose to use that dressing room even if it were the women's dressing room and even if management assured me that the naked stranger with a penis was a trans woman and belonged. I would not be upset that she was there but I would probably not feel comfortable being in the dressing room with a naked stranger with a penis in a space where such person was not naturally expected.

For exactly the same reasons, I would be quite startled to find a naked stranger with a penis in the dressing room next to me or in the shower next to me. Because neither place is where I would naturally expect to see a naked stranger with a penis.

I certainly do NOT wish to outlaw trans individuals and in fact, I do want them to feel safe, happy, healthy, etc. But nope, I do not trust that I would not be startled or alarmed and confused if I saw a naked stranger with a penis in the women's locker room or shower, especially if I were myself naked. I am pretty certain I would immediately cover up and leave and then speak with management. I would be very unlikely to return if I were told that was something I should simply expect. I am guessing I would feel differently if this were someone I already knew and was aware that they were a pre/non-surgical trans woman. Because I would not be so surprised at finding that person in a female only space. Depending on how well I knew the person, I might not even be uncomfortable but I think I'd probably have to know them fairly well.

 

[Toni]

Yes, exposing your naked self is legally considered assault. I have no idea what you are talking about with the Klan robe scenario unless you are talking about your own fantasies.

The Klan robe bit was showing a very offensive view. We have no legal protection against seeing things that offend us.

No, me seeing penises in random public places or in situations where I expected that there would be penises did not cause me any harm.

Yes, being surprised by a naked body with a penis in a women only space IS the issue.

No it is NOT reasonable to expect women to just assume that the naked stranger next to them in the shower is a trans woman and no threat to them.

No it is not reasonable to expect women to be ok with some naked stranger with a penis to see them undressed in a shower or locker room and to make the assumption that it’s only a trans woman and not someone who might be s threat.

You're still only showing that it's wrong because we don't do it.

What kind of obsession do you have with open dressing rooms and showers? Why are private showers and dressing rooms not perfectly reasonable?

I'm fine with private stalls. Where I have a problem is when the whole area is segregated--what is someone trans supposed to do? What is someone with an opposite-sex caregiver supposed to do? (I have experienced the latter. My in-laws ran into the problem repeatedly.)

Again: I certainly am NOT talking about being offended. I do not find anything about the human body offensive, although I do think that some things people might choose to do with their own human body to be offensive (crapping on the dinner table, for example is not just unhygienic but also offensive). Walking about with your genitals exposed (any genitals) is often but not always offensive, depending on the circumstances and sometimes is indicative of acute intoxication or acute mental illness. Not always, of course. Sometimes, walking around with your genitals exposed is perfectly acceptable and even expected. Context matters.

I'm talking about something that YOU do NOT have any experience with and apparently are incapable of having anything resembling empathy with: Women are constantly in some state of surveillance of their surroundings and of their own appearance and behavior, looking out for danger. Most of us can keep that need for surveillance to a minimum in most circumstances but yes, women are more attuned to signs of danger for themselves and for any offspring they might have. It's hardwired into us by nature and society has taught us that we must constantly monitor our surroundings, our dress, our behavior because if we make any kind of mistake, however innocent, we might be attacked and if we are attacked, every single thing about our dress, our behavior, our surroundings will be used against us in a court of law, if it gets that far. Most of the time, it does not get that far, even if it is reported, which most of the time it is not.

This is not a burden that you ever have to consider or bear and it is clearly a burden you do not have any ability to empathize with. You seem to conflate your feelings and your experiences and your beliefs and insecurities with universal and completely rational. You're wrong.

You seem to believe that all women should simply be OK with having to make the instantaneous evaluation of a naked stranger in a dressing room or shower while they, themselves, are naked and correctly coming up with the evaluation that this is obviously a trans woman who is of course no threat to them at all. I suppose in your POV, this would include if the naked individual was showing (however involuntary) signs of sexual arousal. Because of course women know that men never, ever, ever intrude on women when they are expecting privacy and are not fully clothed.* *Sarcasm because of course women know that they can be attacked anywhere at any time, whatever they are wearing or doing and even if there are other people around.

No one can make such judgments immediately and no one should be expected to do so. It is arrogant and callous for men to expect women to immediately accept any individual in their dressing rooms and showers and to know that they are in no danger whatsoever from naked strangers with penises and have no need to feel modest, either.

Thank you for bringing up a situation I had not mentioned when having private stalls would be extremely helpful: when one needs to aid someone who needs help dressing, toileting, showering.

Are you ever going to address why you believe that you speak for all women, and that civil rights advocates are men? It seems most unjustified and unjustifiable to me.

Who the fuck ever said that I think I speak for all women? Much less that civil rights advocates are men? AFAIK, women tend to be much more liberal with respect to gay rights, trans rights, and civil rights compared with men.

That said, I think I am much more well informed with how women in general feel about being confronted with a naked stranger with a penis in a space where they do not expect to see one.

If a naked person, with or without a penis, were to walk into your classroom and take a seat in the front row, I am willing to bet that you would be startled, concerned and probably call whoever is in charge of safety on your campus. Because you would not expect to see a naked stranger in your classroom.

Very few women expect to see naked strangers with penises in the women's locker room. Why is that hard to understand?

 

[bilby]

The entire key to this is naturally expected.

places where either are naturally expected.

There is absolutely not one single natural thing about our expectations.

This entire thread is a clash of differing expectations, made stupider and more adamant by the completely false but devoutly held belief that our expectations somehow derive from a fundamental and universal nature.

The weirdly puritanical American response to nakedness isn't natural at all, and nor is the segregation of bathrooms and changing rooms into two separate facilities.

Not only is in not "natural" to segregate such spaces, it's largely not rational. The vast majority of gender segregated spaces are spaces in which people have complete control over whether, and to what extent, their nakedness is seen by others. And so are different from non-segregated spaces only at a psychological level - these aren't "natural" divisions, they're ideological ones.

It's no more natural for people to have or want segregated bathrooms and changing rooms than it is natural for people to have or want Christian churches. In some places these things are so ubiquitous that the residents literally cannot imagine that they might not be universal, natural, and automatic desires shared by every human who ever lived. In other places, they never had them and don't even notice their absence.

And by the way, the comparison to religion isn't just an analogy. This idea that genders must be segregated in specific circumstances is very much a belief driven by, and caused by, religion.

Some people are naturally very uncomfortable at being seen naked by anyone. Some are naturally totally relaxed at being seen naked by anyone. Some are uncomfortable at being seen naked by strangers, but relaxed about being seen naked by certain known individuals.

Nobody is naturally comfortable being seen naked by some strangers but only if those strangers are from the right demographic group. That's learned behaviour. I have no doubt that you could have found plenty of support in 1980s South Africa for the claim that it was natural for white people to expect not to share facilities with blacks. That didn't make it a true statement about natural expectations.

Expectations are cultural. They're artificial. There's no "natural expectation".

 

[TomC]

Are you ever going to address why you believe that you speak for all women, and that civil rights advocates are men? It seems most unjustified and unjustifiable to me.

I'm certain she didn't claim that. I'm also certain that she's expressing opinions shared by the large bulk of people, black or white, male or female, whatever.

And also there's the fact that it's entirely males, in this thread, arguing that women have no right to a man-free place for personal business.
Tom