• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Split Gendered spaces, split from Drag Shows

To notify a split thread.
You see, we are having a conversation regarding people being where they belong, however, the conflicts it can have with others in that area.

And Oleg wants to keep talking about perverts.
That *is* the problem though. I've said it before, I'll keep saying it. The problem is not transgender people. The problem is self-declaration of gender identity with no gatekeeping.

Males desiring to see females undress without the consent of those females is not new. There are laws in place that say that males aren't allowed to watch females undress without the consent of those females.

But if you change the laws, and now the only thing a male needs to do is to say out loud "I'm a transwoman"... then the laws that protect women from voyeurism are unenforceable. Guys don't even need to bother with a hidden camera - they're allowed by law to go look at naked women whenever they want... and the women are NOT ALLOWED to object to it. Our right to consent - or more importantly our right to deny - has been taken away from us. We're not allowed to say no.

The only option women have at that point is to never use those spaces. Our only option is to not use gyms or spas - ever. We are limited to our homes as the only spaces where we have a right to deny others to see us while we're nude.

It's the urinary leash with fancy new terms. But it's still the urinary leash.
 
It is also not permissible or acceptable to expect women to instantaneously recognize that the naked stranger with a penis beside them in the shower or locker room is of no threat to them.

Because in almost every single circumstance and certainly in likely every single previous circumstance when a woman is confronted with a naked adult stranger with a penis, there IS an intended threat to her safety.

Refusing to recognize that reality is reprehensible.

Note: my position is to advocate for universal stalls with doors in all locker rooms and showers.
Self-fulfilling prophecy problem--if it's not legal for said penis to be there then it's a strong indication of a criminal. If it is legal, however, it doesn't mean they're a criminal.
You obviously do not know or understand what a self fulfilling prophecy is. Nor do you understand relevance.

Most men are not rapists but some are rapists. It is very difficult/impossible to know simply by sight which are and which are not rapists. One must evaluate behavior. Encountering a naked stranger with a penis standing next to you in a woman's shower would be one indication that there is someone who does not belong there because it is absolutely impossible to know immediately if the naked stranger with a penis is actually a trans woman who has no intention of causing harm or a rapist. If you know a way to immediately tell, you would be doing the world a favor by sharing your methods.

And you can make exactly the same argument with regard to blacks in white spaces--only with the difference that there actually is an increased threat in that situation.

BTW, why should pre/non-surgical trans women feel unsafe in a men's locker room?
We seem to be lacking a jaw drop simile.

1) They're female-presenting. That's enough to cause big problems in some areas.

2) You seem to regard surgery as a binary state: Nope, top surgery is far more common than bottom surgery. MtF with surgery will typically have breasts and a penis.
Nope. You are making false assumptions, false equivalencies and are just plain wrong.
 
What about countries that have coed locker rooms? Are there some statistics on those?
Here’s a discussion I found: https://www.quora.com/Has-anyone-ad...-like-a-public-pool-or-a-gym-What-was-it-like
And note that pretty much everyone is saying it's a non-issue.
https://www.quora.com/Has-anyone-ad...-like-a-public-pool-or-a-gym-What-was-it-like
And this: https://publications.aap.org/pediat...ool-Restroom-and-Locker-Room-Restrictions-and

None of this should be any surprise: where unisex facilities are the norm, there seems to be more comfort in using such facilities even fir those most accustomed to segregated sites
Exactly--the problem is one of perceptions.
Non-fender confirming, transgender individuals and gay individuals are at significant risk of sexual assault.

Women and girls are at significant risk of sexual assault in coed facilities.
You haven't established this claim.
Too bad you don't really read everything:
I posted this in the post you quoted but obviously you did NOT read the link:

Note that they included voyeurism in the list of offenses.

Of 134 complaints over 2017-2018, 120 reported incidents took place in gender-neutral changing rooms and just 14 were in single-sex changing areas.

In a further 46 cases, sexual assault allegations were made about attacks in other areas such as in the pool, in a sports hall or corridors.

Unisex facilities account for less than half the changing areas across the UK, but the number is on the rise - doing away with separate male and female changing rooms and toilets is seen as a way to cut staff costs and better cater for transgender people.

Further, for every single one of those situations where people were perfectly fine using unisex facilities, they KNEW THEY WERE UNISEX before they went in. No one was surprised to find a naked stranger with opposite gender genitalia standing next to them. Which you would have recognized if you read with comprehension instead of skimming to have your own prejudices confirmed.
And if facilities were in general permitting of trans we would be in the same situation--people would know what they might see.
 
As far as I can tell, Emily Lake and Toni have neither suggested that transgenders had no place in a locker-room. Their interest is with pre-surgical transgender men. Your interest is apparently with perverts. You are obsessed with perverts.
Pre/Non op is definitely a problem. Even larger though is self-declaration. Self-Id is a problem.

I am willing to compromise and allow post-op transwomen the *right* to use female spaces... but that has to mean that any male who shows up can be challenged on their presence there, and FEMALES retain the right to evict them from that space if WE deem it appropriate to do so.
 
It is not prejudice to assume that an unexpected naked stranger with a penis in a place you did not expect to find one is a potential threat.
I'd go further: It is not prejudice to assume that an unexpected naked stranger with a penis in a place where they have NO BEEN ALLOWED FOR OUR ENTIRE LIVES is a potential threat.

At the very minimum, this is a male who is intentionally transgressing female boundaries. And that is threatening behavior.
 
What about countries that have coed locker rooms? Are there some statistics on those?
Here’s a discussion I found: https://www.quora.com/Has-anyone-ad...-like-a-public-pool-or-a-gym-What-was-it-like
And note that pretty much everyone is saying it's a non-issue.
https://www.quora.com/Has-anyone-ad...-like-a-public-pool-or-a-gym-What-was-it-like
And this: https://publications.aap.org/pediat...ool-Restroom-and-Locker-Room-Restrictions-and

None of this should be any surprise: where unisex facilities are the norm, there seems to be more comfort in using such facilities even fir those most accustomed to segregated sites
Exactly--the problem is one of perceptions.
Non-fender confirming, transgender individuals and gay individuals are at significant risk of sexual assault.

Women and girls are at significant risk of sexual assault in coed facilities.
You haven't established this claim.
Too bad you don't really read everything:
I posted this in the post you quoted but obviously you did NOT read the link:

Note that they included voyeurism in the list of offenses.

Of 134 complaints over 2017-2018, 120 reported incidents took place in gender-neutral changing rooms and just 14 were in single-sex changing areas.

In a further 46 cases, sexual assault allegations were made about attacks in other areas such as in the pool, in a sports hall or corridors.

Unisex facilities account for less than half the changing areas across the UK, but the number is on the rise - doing away with separate male and female changing rooms and toilets is seen as a way to cut staff costs and better cater for transgender people.

Further, for every single one of those situations where people were perfectly fine using unisex facilities, they KNEW THEY WERE UNISEX before they went in. No one was surprised to find a naked stranger with opposite gender genitalia standing next to them. Which you would have recognized if you read with comprehension instead of skimming to have your own prejudices confirmed.
And if facilities were in general permitting of trans we would be in the same situation--people would know what they might see.
Then why isn’t a trans individual safe in male locker rooms?
 
Oh fucking bullshit Loren. YOU are the only one who thinks this is about being prudish. It's about whether or not women have the right to feel safe in women's locker rooms. I think they do. All of them. Including trans women. Who apparently are not safe in men's locker rooms because (some) men are intolerant violent creeps.
Keyword: "feel". That's where we differ--I'm concerned with actual safety, not perception of safety. And despite that deceptive bit from the Independent (note how they lumped offenses, and note that in such a situation it's going to be effectively impossible to prove/disprove voyeurism) the data says it doesn't matter with actual safety. I'm calling out the "women" sign as security theater.
 
Why is that person’s feelings of discomfort and fear of being naked and exposed to a bunch of or even one other naked person with a penis more important than the discomfort and fear of a cis woman?
My working hypothesis is that it's because they know and understand that that one person is a male... and the feelings of males are more important to them than the dignity and safety of women.
 
Projecting, much? No one said anything remotely like that...

I have from the start rejected the argument that all women agree with Toni and yourself, let alone that all women are, as you say, "irrational". Neither is true.
How heavily weighted is your sample of women with women who are males?

FFS, the two female human beings who are active in this discussion have presented largely the same views, for largely the same reasons (although Toni is a lot more tolerant and polite than I). And you just keep dismissing our views in favor of the hypothetical "other women" that you imagine have had completely different experiences in life.
 
Nah, it's even worse than that. Tubbs is a 100% male presenting male who sexually assaulted a 10 year old girl in the women's restroom when he was 17... and went on living his life as a complete man in every sense, until AFTER he was arrested as an adult... at which point he decided he was transgender despite never having expressed any dysphoria or discomfort with this entirely male body, and without ever having expressed any desire to present as female in any way.

And what protection did the sign provide? None. There are criminals out there, a sign isn't going to stop them.

And his magic words said out loud resulted in him being sentenced to serve time in a JUVENILE FEMALE facility.
You realize he's completely separated from them? Bringing this case up at all is part of the trans-panic nonsense.
 
Interestingly, women are actually much more accepting of trans rights than men, despite the men vs women narrative being pushed in this thread. In both cases, most men and most women oppose the use of bathrooms and locker rooms by trans people, that's not in dispute. Ours is a transphobic country to the core. But women are slightly less likely, not more likely, to hold prejudicial attitudes about trans people in publuc spaces.
Yes, women are on the whole more accepting than men. Women have ALWAYS been more accepting of gender nonconforming people than men have been. Women do not enforce social gender norms nearly as harshly as men do, and this has been true throughout history and across cultures.

But... and this is important... If you ask women whether they are okay with pre/non op transwomen using female-only spaces where women are naked or vulnerable... A large majority of women do NOT support that.

Even if more women than men are okay with it, it is still true that the large majority of women oppose it.
 
The problem here that you are trying to impose your feelings on others even though you admit they're not based in reality.
Over 80% of girls and women in the US have been sexually harassed. About 70% of women and girls over the age of 12 has been sexually assaulted. 1 in 6 females in the US has been subjected to an attempted or completed rape.

Less than 1% of reported rapes gets convicted.

But go ahead, Mr. Man. Tell me it's not rooted in reality. Go ahead and tell me that women are just overreacting and being hysterical about the whole thing. Go ahead and tell me that women should just bow down and let any man who claims to have a magical feminine soul should get to violate all of my reasonable boundaries and dismiss my agency in the matter.

Because you, A MAN, has spoken, and clearly, you, A MAN, know much more about women than women do.
You don't get it, either--I'm not denying this. I'm saying it's irrelevant to the issue--that "women" sign provides you no actual safety, only an illusion of safety. While it poses a problem for many (cross sex caregivers) and a substantial risk to a few (MtF in some areas.)
 
I would be fine with requiring therapy and ID indicating they were living as the opposite gender for access to any exposed space, but not for access to spaces where others will not see your equipment. (But note I favor an "any" approach to such spaces which would render it irrelevant.)
I have a few direct questions for you.

1) Do you think that your wife should have the right to a female doctor or nurse for her gynecological exam? Do you think your wife should have the right to a female technician handling her breasts for a mammogram?

2) Do you think that the victim of rape should have the right to a female medical examiner?

What do either of these have to do with the issue? And she's had both male and female gynecologists over the years.

3) Do you think that a female victim of domestic abuse should have access to female-only shelters?
This one poses a thorny issue.
 
Oh fucking bullshit Loren. YOU are the only one who thinks this is about being prudish. It's about whether or not women have the right to feel safe in women's locker rooms. I think they do. All of them. Including trans women. Who apparently are not safe in men's locker rooms because (some) men are intolerant violent creeps.
Keyword: "feel". That's where we differ--I'm concerned with actual safety, not perception of safety. And despite that deceptive bit from the Independent (note how they lumped offenses, and note that in such a situation it's going to be effectively impossible to prove/disprove voyeurism) the data says it doesn't matter with actual safety. I'm calling out the "women" sign as security theater.
I’m also concerned about actual safety, Loren.

Women and girls are attacked in women’s restrooms and locker rooms. They are attacked almost exclusively by people with penises.

I think everyone has a right to feel safe and to actually be safe.

Why don’t you?
 
Oh boy;

A mom who dressed up as a cat to protest against a trans board member has slammed a gym for allowing them to use the women's locker room – claiming that they stared at her breasts. Lindsey Graham, 41, was at Esporta in Goodyear, Arizona, a suburb west of Phoenix, when she claimed Paul Bixler came into the female changing area while she was half naked. The 72-year-old is a retired teacher and principal who identifies as a transgender woman – and wears ' his dead wife's clothes.'

Daily Mail

From the video, Bixler is a bloke wandering around the female locker room like a boss!!
Okay, Lindsay Graham is not a nice person, she's downright mean and a pain.

That said... every single thing about Bixler reads as male. There's no two ways about it - he's a man. He looks like a man, he walks like a man. He is a man. He's a man who likes wearing dresses and earrings - more power to him for that. But he absolutely 100% reads as a man.

He is not in danger from other men by using the men's locker room.

But he clearly seems to enjoy making women uncomfortable and violating their boundaries - why should we be expected to kowtow to him?
 
we're already seeing European countries making all public bathrooms "gender neutral".
As far as I'm aware, many European countries never routinely segregated public bathrooms.
And some did, and have stopped: a preview of what's starting to happen in the UK and North America. Women are becoming second-class citizens in the bathroom to go along with everywhere else.

The lack of segregation in European public toilets is not a new thing - and has yet to lead to a massive increase in sexual assaults.

We were "already" seeing it in the Middle Ages. Those "Trans allies" have either been around for a lot longer than I thought, or have successfully constructed a time machine.
That's a bizarre argument -- if public toilets have been coed since the Middle Ages, when exactly should we have seen the massive increase in sexual assaults, assuming coed bathrooms are dangerous for women? Do you have reliable statistics on the rape rate in medieval Belgium?
The point is that shared bathrooms haven't been seen as a problem--implying there is no explosion of rape.
In any event, Sweden is one of the countries where bathrooms have recently gone coed, and Sweden has had a massive increase in sexual assaults. Of course there are confounding factors, but that hardly supports the position that it isn't a problem.
Sweden should be omitted from the data as corrupted. The problem is they expanded the list of acts which are considered "sexual assault". Well, duh, when you do that you should expect the rate to "increase"! Unless it's broken down by act you can't reasonably compare data from before the change to after the change. You can't even compare totals because they added acts which were previously not covered--the one I'm aware of is stealthing, but I believe there are others.
 
What data shows otherwise? Because I posted a link Upthread ( that you if course ignored) that stated otherwise.

If you’ve got studies, please link them. Otherwise we will all just recognize it for wishful posting.
I did previously. Your source commits the sin of lumping offenses, including voyeurism which in the situation is something that basically can't be proven/disproven. Since they have done this without need I presume an honest comparison wouldn't support their position.
 
Excuse me: You are admitting that a MTF would be at risk in a male locker room. At least two posters in this thread have written about being unsafe in male locker rooms.

It is pretty obvious that the threat to other people’s safety comes from MEN. #NotAllMen, obviously.

So if MEN admit that they feel threatened/at risk of violence and harm from other men in dressing g rooms, WHY on earth do you think that women should meekly accept a naked person with a penis in their shower without any concern?
Yeah, I get it, men don't matter, it's all about what happens to those who are by your definition women. Once again, no different than what we used to see with race issues.
 
OTOH, what about pre-operative Female trans in the men's locker room? Are they safe from males?
Probably not. But there is a difference here.

First, let's be realistic. Men are larger, stronger, and faster than women. Not every single man - you can find a tiny delicate man if you look for one. And not every single woman - female MMA Fighters exist. But 95% of the time, a randomly selected man can physically dominate a randomly selected woman. I don't like it - no woman I know likes it, despite porn seemingly insisting that chicks totally dig it. But we don't get to dictate to evolution, and we're a sexually dimorphic species.

So let's talk about why these are different scenarios.

If a female goes into a male space, that female is voluntarily taking risk on herself, by her own agency. She is likely to be outnumbered, and even if there's only one male in there, there's a 95% chance that if he wanted to harm her, he could do so... and there's nothing she could do about it. The key here is that the female is exerting her agency to take on risk to herself.

If a male goes into a female space, that male is imposing risk on the females in that space. He is not at risk from the females in that space - they are at risk from him.

In both cases, it ends up being the females who are subjected to the risk posed by the male. But in the first case, the female is voluntarily taking that risk, in the second that risk is being forced upon her without her consent.


When it comes to prisons, I am unapologetically biased. Any pre- or non-op transwoman belongs in a male prison or a separate transwomen's space, not in the female ward. Full stop. Post-op transwomen might be allowed in the female ward on a case by case basis, provided that none of their crimes were violent in nature, and none were of a sexual nature. And even then, the female prisoners should have the right to decline sharing a cell with that post-op transwoman if they so choose, because even complete SRS with FFS cannot change the physicality of a male. And a hugely disproportionate number of female inmates are there because they finally snapped and attacked or killer a man who had been abusing them for years. A massive number of female prisoners have histories of severe sexual and domestic abuse at the hands of men.

On the other hand... no matter how much testosterone or surgery they have had, I think that post-op transmen should NEVER be placed in a male prison ward. No exceptions. If there is a separate transgender ward, and they choose to be housed there, fine. But NEVER in the male ward.

Because no matter how much surgery, no matter how much hormones... males are still males and females are still females. Full penectomy and orchiectomy can remove the ability of a post-op transwoman to rape-with-a-penis. But no amount of surgery can make that transman the physical equal to the men in the male ward, and they will always be more vulnerable and more at risk in a male prison than any risk they present to women in the female prison.
 
Back
Top Bottom