Split Gendered spaces, split from Drag Shows

[Bomb#20]

Ah, yes. The sensitive, feminist-minded guys of the right wing. Sure.

But the idea of looking to a political faction that treats women as brood-mares - who in this past year alone sucessfully manipulated the Supreme Court in to a ruling that in many states will force women to give birth against their will - in order to "defend women from men" will still sound ridiculous.

No, holding and advocating for right wing opinions make you right wing. Pretending to care about female opinions for the sake of an anti-trans argument is just part of the new right wing aesthetic, which will pass whenever it is no longer faddish.

"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice: What I tell you three times is true."

We all understand that you have an unlimited capacity to repeat your trumped-up accusation, but saying it three times or three million times doesn't make it true. Tom is not a right-winger and you do not have a reason to suppose he is.

You are thinking like a medieval Christian bigot. There are lots of different worldviews that are skeptical of one or another of your opinions, and the circumstance that you regard infidels as interchangeable parts and label us all "right wing" does not constrain us to agree among ourselves about much of anything -- it certainly doesn't constrain us to agree with the archetypal insensitive male-chauvinist-pig right-winger of your self-congratulatory imagination who treats women as brood-mares. When you impute that guy's cartoon character traits to a real person just because he disputed some unscientific opinion your ideology takes on faith, you are not presenting a substantive case. You are stereotyping; and you are using an ad hominem argument.

 

[Politesse]

Ah, yes. The sensitive, feminist-minded guys of the right wing. Sure.

But the idea of looking to a political faction that treats women as brood-mares - who in this past year alone sucessfully manipulated the Supreme Court in to a ruling that in many states will force women to give birth against their will - in order to "defend women from men" will still sound ridiculous.

No, holding and advocating for right wing opinions make you right wing. Pretending to care about female opinions for the sake of an anti-trans argument is just part of the new right wing aesthetic, which will pass whenever it is no longer faddish.

"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice: What I tell you three times is true."

We all understand that you have an unlimited capacity to repeat your trumped-up accusation, but saying it three times or three million times doesn't make it true. Tom is not a right-winger and you do not have a reason to suppose he is.

You are thinking like a medieval Christian bigot. There are lots of different worldviews that are skeptical of one or another of your opinions, and the circumstance that you regard infidels as interchangeable parts and label us all "right wing" does not constrain us to agree among ourselves about much of anything -- it certainly doesn't constrain us to agree with the archetypal insensitive male-chauvinist-pig right-winger of your self-congratulatory imagination who treats women as brood-mares. When you impute that guy's cartoon character traits to a real person just because he disputed some unscientific opinion your ideology takes on faith, you are not presenting a substantive case. You are stereotyping; and you are using an ad hominem argument.

I don't recall claiming that the right wing is united in opinion. "Right" and "Left" are incredibly vague and general labels, barely more than metaphors, and the Right is perhaps more divided at present than it has ever been. But feminism is not a true priority for it, now or in the past.

And if you want to talk science, you're to need to do that in the language of empirical evidence, not political bluster.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well, if bathrooms are set up so one denies entry to those who ejaculate sperms, this makes the "sperms" bathroom also the "any" bathroom.

You keep going on about sperm as though that's the issue. It's not!

If the damage and trauma resulting from a man sexually assaulting a woman could be erased with a "morning after" pill, this issue wouldn't be a big deal.
Tom

My point is that there is no boundary separating the awfulness of violation by a penis and violation by a thumb or fingers, when there is no sperm involved.

It IS about sperm, at that point. Sperm is the defining difference here, and whatever diseases whoever has on whatever organ they use to penetrate.

The sperm is what puts the existential difference into the penis.

Penises are far more able to transmit disease than fingers.

 

[repoman]

Hilarious Sam Brinton is the gift that keeps on giving.

 

[Jarhyn]

Well, if bathrooms are set up so one denies entry to those who ejaculate sperms, this makes the "sperms" bathroom also the "any" bathroom.

You keep going on about sperm as though that's the issue. It's not!

If the damage and trauma resulting from a man sexually assaulting a woman could be erased with a "morning after" pill, this issue wouldn't be a big deal.
Tom

My point is that there is no boundary separating the awfulness of violation by a penis and violation by a thumb or fingers, when there is no sperm involved.

It IS about sperm, at that point. Sperm is the defining difference here, and whatever diseases whoever has on whatever organ they use to penetrate.

The sperm is what puts the existential difference into the penis.

Penises are far more able to transmit disease than fingers.

Are they? I'm pretty sure I acquire more and far more dangerous diseases from my fingers than via my penis.

That said, the diseases that penises transmit are a lot more publicized and vilified. It's kind of like COVID vs Guinea Worm. One is much more of a threat to life and damages the intelligence of its victims, and the other is painful and gross for a long time.

People have worked diligently to eliminate one from the world, and the other, trolls have actively worked to encourage the spread even while it killed people.

Either way, the sperms are the mediator of the greatest and most prescient threat by orders of magnitude.

If you want to have a basis for demanding the absence of a person from a space, it is the sperms.

Not every person that ejaculates active sperms will be strong, or violent, or evil.

Not even the majority of them.

Every single one produces sperms.

If I had the ability to become pregnant, I wouldn't want people who had instant access to shooting sperms out of any part of their body penis shaped or otherwise anywhere near my toilet paper dispenser.

That's a reasonable line to draw.

It is also, from the perspective of the anti-trans bigot, something they cannot acknowledge given their core goals of finding an enemy to hate because this is an easy boundary to step across. They can't defend the border of "doesn't ejaculate sperms". "Doesn't ejaculate sperms" is an ideological location with opened borders.

It opens an uncomfortable window, too, into the public acknowledgement of "where babies come from", when from a young age, where you pee depends on you understanding why reproduction happens, and what "sperms" are.

It is also uncomfortable for many because as Politesse has brought up, this is something incomprehensible to many, if not most men. It is so incomprehensible they take thinking about it as a slight to the very idea of manliness. To some I am the greatest traitor imaginable for this reason, and I expect that this includes far more than just folks with dicks, even if they're all rather "dickish".

if there is something to be separated on the basis of a difference in reproductive systems, that separation should be on the basis of the payload, not the delivery mechanism.

Of course that would also mean that if you MIGHT be capable of it, you would need to seek special certification that you don't to cross the border. I think a lot of people would want to avoid that world because then the lie "oh babe, I'm not able to have kids, let's do this raw" would be an actionable claim.

 

[Emily Lake]

Yeah, people always talk about the great heroes who "champion civil rights", but no one ever acknowledges the great and noble social leaders who oppose them, and wish to restrict and oppress the population. Shouldn't they get some credit for happening to share a gender expression with many of their victims?

You know, I have to scratch my head at this narrative. I mean, be clear here - exactly what civil rights are you championing? What civil rights am I opposing and who am I oppressing?

Because as far as I can tell, you are championing the "civil right" of any male who says an out-loud magical formula of "I'm a woman now" to have immediate rights to view naked women against their will, to expose themselves to women against their will, to override women's boundaries and consent at their whim. You're championing the "civil right" of incarcerated males to have a special choice to be housed with females who are weaker, less aggressive, and considerably more vulnerable than men... regardless of the will of those women. You're championing the "civil right" of males to take female athletic positions, female political spots, and female recognitions.

And you cast my view as "oppression". It's "oppression" for women to wish to have a male-free space for their intimate functions. It's "oppression" for women to have the right to to a female medical practitioner to perform intimate exams. It's "oppression" for an elderly or disabled women to have the right to a female attendant to help them bathe, toilet, and dress. It's "oppression" for women to want the right to compete athletically against other women, so that their competition is fair and reasonable.

 

[Toni]

Well, if bathrooms are set up so one denies entry to those who ejaculate sperms, this makes the "sperms" bathroom also the "any" bathroom.

You keep going on about sperm as though that's the issue. It's not!

If the damage and trauma resulting from a man sexually assaulting a woman could be erased with a "morning after" pill, this issue wouldn't be a big deal.
Tom

My point is that there is no boundary separating the awfulness of violation by a penis and violation by a thumb or fingers, when there is no sperm involved.

It IS about sperm, at that point. Sperm is the defining difference here, and whatever diseases whoever has on whatever organ they use to penetrate.

The sperm is what puts the existential difference into the penis.

Penises are far more able to transmit disease than fingers.

Are they? I'm pretty sure I acquire more and far more dangerous diseases from my fingers than via my penis.

That said, the diseases that penises transmit are a lot more publicized and vilified. It's kind of like COVID vs Guinea Worm. One is much more of a threat to life and damages the intelligence of its victims, and the other is painful and gross for a long time.

People have worked diligently to eliminate one from the world, and the other, trolls have actively worked to encourage the spread even while it killed people.

Either way, the sperms are the mediator of the greatest and most prescient threat by orders of magnitude.

If you want to have a basis for demanding the absence of a person from a space, it is the sperms.

Not every person that ejaculates active sperms will be strong, or violent, or evil.

Not even the majority of them.

Every single one produces sperms.

If I had the ability to become pregnant, I wouldn't want people who had instant access to shooting sperms out of any part of their body penis shaped or otherwise anywhere near my toilet paper dispenser.

That's a reasonable line to draw.

It is also, from the perspective of the anti-trans bigot, something they cannot acknowledge given their core goals of finding an enemy to hate because this is an easy boundary to step across. They can't defend the border of "doesn't ejaculate sperms". "Doesn't ejaculate sperms" is an ideological location with opened borders.

It opens an uncomfortable window, too, into the public acknowledgement of "where babies come from", when from a young age, where you pee depends on you understanding why reproduction happens, and what "sperms" are.

It is also uncomfortable for many because as Politesse has brought up, this is something incomprehensible to many, if not most men. It is so incomprehensible they take thinking about it as a slight to the very idea of manliness. To some I am the greatest traitor imaginable for this reason, and I expect that this includes far more than just folks with dicks, even if they're all rather "dickish".

if there is something to be separated on the basis of a difference in reproductive systems, that separation should be on the basis of the payload, not the delivery mechanism.

Of course that would also mean that if you MIGHT be capable of it, you would need to seek special certification that you don't to cross the border. I think a lot of people would want to avoid that world because then the lie "oh babe, I'm not able to have kids, let's do this raw" would be an actionable claim.

I am long past the potential of becoming pregnant for multiple reasons, age being only one.

Women are not uncomfortable with men being in their restrooms or locker rooms because we are concerned about becoming pregnant or because we are afraid of penises. Many of us are quite fond of penises, or at least the ones we are intimate with and many of us long to become pregnant, again, usually by someone we are familiar with and love.

Women are uncomfortable with unfamiliar men being in women's restrooms and locker rooms because of the threat of violence and especially sexual violence.

Not fear of men. Not fear of penises. Not fear of sperm. Not fear of pregnancy.

Fear of violence and assault, especially sexual violence and assault.

 

[Emily Lake]

I truly believe that transwomen ARE women.

But you advocate for stripping them of their freedom to choose what bathroom to use? Do you, in general, feel that all women should not have this right? Under what circumstances do you feel strangers should be allowed to examine a woman's genitals and determine what rights she possesses based on their opinion of her body and whether or nor those genitals look "right" to them, whether or she consents?

What women have a right to speak, and which should be silenced?

Your entire position relies on equivocation. You bait and switch a figurative meaning of the word "woman" for a literal meaning of the word "woman" in order to grant special privileges to males while simultaneously denying females the right to their own boundaries and consent.

 

[TomC]

Women are uncomfortable with unfamiliar men being in women's restrooms and locker rooms because of the threat of violence and especially sexual violence.

Not fear of men. Not fear of penises. Not fear of sperm. Not fear of pregnancy.

Fear of violence and assault, especially sexual violence and assault.

I don't understand why this is difficult to understand. It's obvious to me what you mean.
Tom

 

[Emily Lake]

Time to Think by Hannah Barnes review – what went wrong at Gids?

The BBC Newsnight reporter’s investigation into the Tavistock’s gender identity clinic for children makes disturbing reading

www.theguardian.com

Clinicians at Gids insisted the effects of these drugs were reversible; that taking them would reduce the distress experienced by gender dysphoric children; and that there was no causality between starting hormone blockers and going on to take cross-sex hormones (the latter are taken by adults who want fully to transition). Unfortunately, none of these things were true. Such drugs do have severe side effects, and while the causality between blockers and cross-sex hormones cannot be proven – all the studies into them have been designed without a control group – 98% of children who take the first go on to take the latter. Most seriously of all, as Gids’ own research suggested, they do not appear to lead to any improvement in children’s psychological wellbeing.

And, once again a case of crap data.

Yes, 98% go on to hormones. And ice cream sales cause rape. (The classic example of a strong correlation that is really a case of both things being influenced by a third factor.)

You should probably actually read the CASS report.

 

[Emily Lake]

You still haven't presented any solution for the problem of the female-presenting person with a penis risking their life by going into a men's room in redneck territory.

Let me know when penis presenting humans are in more danger in the male restrooms than humans with vaginas are with males in the restroom.

Males are far more dangerous to females than females are to males.
Are you really unable to understand that?
Tom

He understands, he just doesn't care.

This isn't a new position for Loren. He's been pretty consistent about viewing women as second-class. Pretty much since I first joined the very original IIDB back in... 2002? I don't even know anymore.

 

[Emily Lake]

I see at least two significant differences: there is no history of black people attacking white people as there is a history of make people attacking female people. I truly believe that transwomen ARE women. I also know that it would be impossible for almost all women and girls to see an individual with a penis and not assume that person is male and quite possibly has an intention to do them harm.

No history? The crime data says otherwise. Sure, it's actually socioeconomic but you have no way to quickly determine that. Meanwhile, the notion that the person with the penis poses an increased risk has not been supported by the data.

95% of sexual offenses are committed by the people with the penises. 99% of the victims of sexual offenses are the people with vaginas.

No... there's no increased risk at all!

 

[Emily Lake]

You still haven't presented any solution for the problem of the female-presenting person with a penis risking their life by going into a men's room in redneck territory.

Let me know when penis presenting humans are in more danger in the male restrooms than humans with vaginas are with males in the restroom.

Males are far more dangerous to females than females are to males.
Are you really unable to understand that?
Tom

I don't have any good answer for male-presenting with vaginas. That's a problem either way.

Wait... just wait... there's a problem with the male-presenting people who have vaginas... but there's NO PROBLEM AT ALL with the female-presenting(ish) people with penises?

 

[Emily Lake]

What you're not catching is the clever conflation from "sperms" to "penis". One of these poses a risk of creating pregnancies. One of these things poses no more risk to any person than a person with hands that have fingers on them.

Do you... do you really believe that the only reason women don't like getting raped is because they might get pregnant?

 

[Emily Lake]

The argument here seems to be that trans women are real women and should be able to use the facilities they feel safe and comfortable using. I do not disagree with that at all.

Once you can provide me with a sure-fire way to determine who is, and who is not a transwoman, I might support this view. At present, I do not.

Facilities are separated on the basis of sex, not on the basis of ephemeral gender identity. One of these things is objectively definable, the other is entirely subjective and based on belief.

 

[Emily Lake]

Also the guys who care about women as a group.

Ah, yes. The sensitive, feminist-minded guys of the right wing. Sure.

Oh hey, cool way to do "logic" - instead of actually addressing the issue, just poison the well!

 

[TomC]

What you're not catching is the clever conflation from "sperms" to "penis". One of these poses a risk of creating pregnancies. One of these things poses no more risk to any person than a person with hands that have fingers on them.

Do you... do you really believe that the only reason women don't like getting raped is because they might get pregnant?

That's how it looks to me as well.

Rape is a problem if a man might have a problem. Ya know, child support or something.
Tom

 

[Toni]

The argument here seems to be that trans women are real women and should be able to use the facilities they feel safe and comfortable using. I do not disagree with that at all.

Once you can provide me with a sure-fire way to determine who is, and who is not a transwoman, I might support this view. At present, I do not.

Facilities are separated on the basis of sex, not on the basis of ephemeral gender identity. One of these things is objectively definable, the other is entirely subjective and based on belief.

That is also my caveat: How to know with a good deal of certainty that the person who appears male is a transwoman. I have zero desire to offend or traumatize a trans woman just as I have zero desire to see any woman (trans or cis) put at risk for trauma or assault.

 

[Toni]

Also the guys who care about women as a group.

Ah, yes. The sensitive, feminist-minded guys of the right wing. Sure.

Oh hey, cool way to do "logic" - instead of actually addressing the issue, just poison the well!

Oh, I get Politesse here. Trust me, I feel uncomfortable and somewhat angry knowing that there are some anti-trans individuals who are happy to use my concerns about ensuring the safety and comfort of everyone to further their anti-trans agenda.

But I'll tell ya what (and by ya I mean everyone, not you, Emily): I'll be happy to drop any and all concerns about potential trauma or danger to (any)women in women's locker rooms if men will actually quit assaulting other people, including sexual assault. Also if people would quit blaming the victims of sexual assault for their assaults. That would be an even better, more globally just and fair solution.

 

[Emily Lake]

I can see that.

I’ve wanted to apologize for some time for creating the perception that I don’t accept trans women or that I find the idea of sharing space with transwomen threatening or repulsive or negative. I don’t. That, for me, is not the issue and never has been.

Toni, you have nothing to apologize for. You have never created that perception. You have been 100% consistent on this point. The people who formed that perception formed it entirely out of the baggage they brought to the discussion themselves.

Agree. Toni has been consistent and very nice about it.

On the other hand, I categorically do not accept transwomen as women. At least not literally. Figuratively, sure. And in almost all social interactions, not a problem. I have no animosity or dislike, there are several transwomen that I know and very much like.

But they are still male. And all of my issues on the topic of policy are very explicitly sex-based. How a person feels, what they wear, that doesn't change their sex.