Legal definition of woman is based on biological sex, UK supreme court rules

[Emily Lake]

It's funny how these people claim to be speaking for "science", but also despise "academia" and the college system. Almost as though the thing they are calling science is... not, in recognizable sense, science. If your ideology abhors the scrutiny of the scienitific community, a science it is not, but is simply a belief among beliefs.

Yeah... none of that is actually true.

I'm all for science, and I'm all for the college system. And I don't despise academia... although I frequently dislike academics. I particularly dislike those academics who insist that their liberal arts studies full of untestable speculations are synonymous with hard sciences.

 

[Emily Lake]

What "victims"? You can fuck right off with that malicious, cruel, and malign rhetoric.

The minority class targeted by your "liberal" political activities.

In what way is seani victimizing this group of people? Can you elaborate on what "minority class" you're talking about?

On the other hand... advocating for males to have the right-by-law to look at non-consenting women and to expose their genitals to non-consenting women doesn't seem all that liberal to me.

 

[Emily Lake]

And at what fucking point did grown men become "innocent children" who need the safety and fairness of women's spaces and sports?

Your anti-trans bullshit

Not a single bit of my position is anti-trans. If you think that pro-women is definitionally anti-trans... then you, sir, are a misogynist.

may affect some adult men and women, but the majority of your victims

I have victimized nobody at all. Your rhetoric borders on libel.

are and will always be underage,

This is an invented falsehood. Stop engaging in intentional misinformation.

as underage people are far more vulnerable to social abuse and alienation, being unable to hide their condition

Well this is just a dumb statement. Seriously dumb. Like blinded by your own zealotry dumb. FFS, there is a TON of androgynous clothing available to anyone of either sex all the fucking time. No child is somehow *incapable* of wearing jeans and a t-shirt and some vans. We're talking about presentation here, pal. That's the only thing that should be under discussion when we're talking about kids.

and can make few if any decisions about where they live or what institutions they must attend. When you pass laws attacking trans people, adult trans people can hide. Children can't.

In your world, "Males cannot use female intimate spaces or play in female sports" is tantamount to attacking trans people. You give exactly zero fucks about how this affects women, but boy oh boy, you'll go to the mat to make sure that men have the legal right to violate female boundaries. How very progressive of you.

 

[laughing dog]

Nope. Any policy that prevents a trans who has undergone a complete transformation is hurtful.

Tell you what - you come up with a way to allow males who have had penectomies, orchiectomies, vaginoplasties, tracheal shaving, electrolysis or laser hair removal, exogenous estrogen supplements, and whatever else you want to toss into the bag of "complete transformation" into female spaces while ALSO excluding males who have NOT had all of those things OUT... then we can talk.

Because right now, you're effectively arguing for policies that allow ALL MEN OF ANY SORT into female spaces. Come up with a reliable way to sort them out, a way without giant gaping loopholes, and maybe we can make some progress on this topic.

No, I’m not. For example, I’m not saying I should be allowed into female spaces.

At the current time, there is no protocol to insure a priori that female only spaces stay female only. Common courtesy and social convention keep issues at a minimum. Any enforcement occurs after discovery. Seems to me that changing expectations and social conventions is the less intrusive and historically accepted approach.

 

[Toni]

It's funny how these people claim to be speaking for "science", but also despise "academia" and the college system. Almost as though the thing they are calling science is... not, in recognizable sense, science. If your ideology abhors the scrutiny of the scienitific community, a science it is not, but is simply a belief among beliefs.

Yeah... none of that is actually true.

I'm all for science, and I'm all for the college system. And I don't despise academia... although I frequently dislike academics. I particularly dislike those academics who insist that their liberal arts studies full of untestable speculations are synonymous with hard sciences.

So you don’t actually understand or respect liberal arts.

I kind of get it: back in k-12, and for me, even in college, there was more than a little bit of elitist ideology around math and hard science. They were ‘harder’ supposedly but also easier to grade as right or wrong. I’m guessing you are younger than I am but the space race really amped up the drive to study science and math ( and later, computer science) because that was what the country/world needed, and also because that was the future of good jobs.

I know my parents pushed us into math/science and while 3/4 of us got well paying jobs, I’m not convinced half of us were happy with the fraction math/science took us. I’m conflicted. I don’t know for certain if I would have been so driven to excel in sciences and math if I had not been pushed by my parents to do so. And I was waging war on those who claimed girls couldn’t do math or science, so that was a motivation. But truthfully, I devoured all books and subjects except for music ( I’m tone deaf and cannot carry a tune, much to my dismay and musically illiterate to boot). I also disliked social sciences such as history because they focused on makes and war—as taught in my school system.

My dream was to have a career in science and when I retired, to focus on art and literature—neither of which I was likely to earn a living at, unless I taught. Which I considered but only science.

You sound very much like I used to be: assuming that social sciences had no real science to them, which, as it turns out, is quite false. Which I learned in college and after. Sure intro classes were very easy but so were intro science and math courses.

The thing is, some things are done so well by the professionals in the field that they seem easy. Confession of a music illiterate: I was way way way into adulthood before I realized that people who sang well or played an instrument well had to do a LOT of very hard work in order to be good. It wasn’t just talent plus time and interest. Something I learned, Heaven help me, by watching a couple of seasons of The Voice. Not for the performances but watching the coaching. That stuff is hella hard and precise. There are entire bodies of knowledge and fields of study where I am, at best, a pre-schooler.

But more to the point: All that science/math/computer machismo has gotten us a where tech bros are taking over with their hundreds of billions of dollars. They’re really good at a couple of things—and dismiss the importance of everything else. To society’s extreme detriment. This began with Reagan at least, perhaps before.

When one specializes in a narrow field or a narrow portion of a field, as most academics do to earn their PhDs, one begins to see the entire works through that lens. At least for while. Most are quite intelligent and know a lot about more things. But they are paid fur just the one part of their knowledge base. And people only see that one aspect. Plus there has been a concerted effort in the US to belittle those with deep knowledge that does not immediately turn a dime or billion for, business. And the political machine.

 

[Politesse]

Biology and medicine are not "liberal arts" in any case.

 

[Toni]

Nope. Any policy that prevents a trans who has undergone a complete transformation is hurtful.

Tell you what - you come up with a way to allow males who have had penectomies, orchiectomies, vaginoplasties, tracheal shaving, electrolysis or laser hair removal, exogenous estrogen supplements, and whatever else you want to toss into the bag of "complete transformation" into female spaces while ALSO excluding males who have NOT had all of those things OUT... then we can talk.

Because right now, you're effectively arguing for policies that allow ALL MEN OF ANY SORT into female spaces. Come up with a reliable way to sort them out, a way without giant gaping loopholes, and maybe we can make some progress on this topic.

No, I’m not. For example, I’m not saying I should be allowed into female spaces.

At the current time, there is no protocol to insure a priori that female only spaces stay female only. Common courtesy and social convention keep issues at a minimum. Any enforcement occurs after discovery. Seems to me that changing expectations and social conventions is the less intrusive and historically accepted approach.

Yes, but there is no real thought about ensuring that girls and women are safe and their privacy is recognized and protected.

I’m absolutely sincere when I write that trans individuals are every bit as entitled to safety and privacy as are cis individuals.

The question is how. I don’t know the answer but having men tell girls and women to just get over it—when what women and girls are afraid of is violence at the hands of men! is more than a little rich.

 

[laughing dog]

Nope. Any policy that prevents a trans who has undergone a complete transformation is hurtful.

Tell you what - you come up with a way to allow males who have had penectomies, orchiectomies, vaginoplasties, tracheal shaving, electrolysis or laser hair removal, exogenous estrogen supplements, and whatever else you want to toss into the bag of "complete transformation" into female spaces while ALSO excluding males who have NOT had all of those things OUT... then we can talk.

Because right now, you're effectively arguing for policies that allow ALL MEN OF ANY SORT into female spaces. Come up with a reliable way to sort them out, a way without giant gaping loopholes, and maybe we can make some progress on this topic.

No, I’m not. For example, I’m not saying I should be allowed into female spaces.

At the current time, there is no protocol to insure a priori that female only spaces stay female only. Common courtesy and social convention keep issues at a minimum. Any enforcement occurs after discovery. Seems to me that changing expectations and social conventions is the less intrusive and historically accepted approach.

Yes, but there is no real thought about ensuring that girls and women are safe and their privacy is recognized and protected.

Sadly, that is the case regardless of the resolution of trans use.

 

[Toni]

Nope. Any policy that prevents a trans who has undergone a complete transformation is hurtful.

Tell you what - you come up with a way to allow males who have had penectomies, orchiectomies, vaginoplasties, tracheal shaving, electrolysis or laser hair removal, exogenous estrogen supplements, and whatever else you want to toss into the bag of "complete transformation" into female spaces while ALSO excluding males who have NOT had all of those things OUT... then we can talk.

Because right now, you're effectively arguing for policies that allow ALL MEN OF ANY SORT into female spaces. Come up with a reliable way to sort them out, a way without giant gaping loopholes, and maybe we can make some progress on this topic.

No, I’m not. For example, I’m not saying I should be allowed into female spaces.

At the current time, there is no protocol to insure a priori that female only spaces stay female only. Common courtesy and social convention keep issues at a minimum. Any enforcement occurs after discovery. Seems to me that changing expectations and social conventions is the less intrusive and historically accepted approach.

Yes, but there is no real thought about ensuring that girls and women are safe and their privacy is recognized and protected.

Sadly, that is the case regardless of the resolution of trans use.

It further erodes whatever illusions of safety girls and women have. Think about how often the trust of girls and women is betrayed by coaches and physicians working with female athletes. Now, the proposal is to allow trans students in the same locker rooms. Almost all will be perfectly fine, just as almost all coaches and physicians are fine.

It is hard for me to not feel a bit queasy at making that leap of faith that no girl or woman will be harmed.

And that includes trans girls and women.

 

[Arctish]

Caster Semenya won a partial victory at the European Court of Human Rights on Thursday in her seven-year legal fight against track and field’s sex eligibility rules.

She was assigned female at birth, was raised as a girl, identifies as female, but was banned from competition because she has a DSD which has resulted in her body naturally producing more testosterone than is a typical for a female, and she refused to take drugs to suppress it.

World Athletics, led by its president Sebastian Coe, has said its rules maintain fairness because Semenya has an unfair, male-like athletic advantage from her higher testosterone. Semenya argues her testosterone is a genetic gift.

 

[bilby]

Caster Semenya won a partial victory at the European Court of Human Rights on Thursday in her seven-year legal fight against track and field’s sex eligibility rules.

She was assigned female at birth, was raised as a girl, identifies as female, but was banned from competition because she has a DSD which has resulted in her body naturally producing more testosterone than is a typical for a female, and she refused to take drugs to suppress it.

World Athletics, led by its president Sebastian Coe, has said its rules maintain fairness because Semenya has an unfair, male-like athletic advantage from her higher testosterone. Semenya argues her testosterone is a genetic gift.

I presume Seb Coe will also "maintain fairness" in basketball by prohibiting any female players over 5'6" tall, on the same basis.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Nope. Any policy that prevents a trans who has undergone a complete transformation is hurtful.

Tell you what - you come up with a way to allow males who have had penectomies, orchiectomies, vaginoplasties, tracheal shaving, electrolysis or laser hair removal, exogenous estrogen supplements, and whatever else you want to toss into the bag of "complete transformation" into female spaces while ALSO excluding males who have NOT had all of those things OUT... then we can talk.

Because right now, you're effectively arguing for policies that allow ALL MEN OF ANY SORT into female spaces. Come up with a reliable way to sort them out, a way without giant gaping loopholes, and maybe we can make some progress on this topic.

No, I’m not. For example, I’m not saying I should be allowed into female spaces.

At the current time, there is no protocol to insure a priori that female only spaces stay female only. Common courtesy and social convention keep issues at a minimum. Any enforcement occurs after discovery. Seems to me that changing expectations and social conventions is the less intrusive and historically accepted approach.

Yes, but there is no real thought about ensuring that girls and women are safe and their privacy is recognized and protected.

Sadly, that is the case regardless of the resolution of trans use.

It further erodes whatever illusions of safety girls and women have. Think about how often the trust of girls and women is betrayed by coaches and physicians working with female athletes. Now, the proposal is to allow trans students in the same locker rooms. Almost all will be perfectly fine, just as almost all coaches and physicians are fine.

It is hard for me to not feel a bit queasy at making that leap of faith that no girl or woman will be harmed.

And that includes trans girls and women.

I feel like that it is possible if transgender issues were taken seriously abroad, we could manage this better. However, even merely providing mental health care over gender dysphoria is controversial and being fought against. If people who have some level of gender dysphoria could receive the mental and physical support they needed, inclusion in private spaces could be more feasible as those with gender dysphoria would be better cared for... and the BS'ers would be eliminated from the system.

But there are people in this thread that want to pretend transgenderism is a choice. Their image is used is negative campaign ads on national television. So we are fighting over whether gender dysphoria exists, whether someone can be Y while X or X while Y or should be forced to endure what they were born with on an organ level. Instead of treating these people with humility and the best care we can.

Some people just need to be dragged into the future, while they are clawing at the ground.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

and can make few if any decisions about where they live or what institutions they must attend. When you pass laws attacking trans people, adult trans people can hide. Children can't.

In your world, "Males cannot use female intimate spaces or play in female sports" is tantamount to attacking trans people. You give exactly zero fucks about how this affects women, but boy oh boy, you'll go to the mat to make sure that men have the legal right to violate female boundaries. How very progressive of you.

You are over simplifying what Politesse said. Transgenders were used as negative campaigning fodder by the GOP. People are running for office on anti-transgender rights. Legislatures are passing laws contracting the rights of transgenders.

Are enough transgenders competing in sports in the wrong gender to justify passing a law and making a big deal of it? There is a difference between restriction access within high school or collegiate sports within the organizations that run them, and parading around legislation to "protect women" by politicians that have done nothing but support legislation that harms women.

We aren't going to properly and humanely settle this issue without making two things clear, transgender people exist, transgender people are human beings. Once we can accept that as a culture, we can then provide them the medical support they need to be able to help determine and accept who they really are. Once we get there, we can cut this noise about danger because ultimately, the fear is caused by one simple thing, doubting who these people say they are.

 

[Politesse]

There is a difference between restriction access within high school or collegiate sports within the organizations that run them, and parading around legislation to "protect women" by politicians that have done nothing but support legislation that harms women.

Bingo.

 

[laughing dog]

Nope. Any policy that prevents a trans who has undergone a complete transformation is hurtful.

Tell you what - you come up with a way to allow males who have had penectomies, orchiectomies, vaginoplasties, tracheal shaving, electrolysis or laser hair removal, exogenous estrogen supplements, and whatever else you want to toss into the bag of "complete transformation" into female spaces while ALSO excluding males who have NOT had all of those things OUT... then we can talk.

Because right now, you're effectively arguing for policies that allow ALL MEN OF ANY SORT into female spaces. Come up with a reliable way to sort them out, a way without giant gaping loopholes, and maybe we can make some progress on this topic.

No, I’m not. For example, I’m not saying I should be allowed into female spaces.

At the current time, there is no protocol to insure a priori that female only spaces stay female only. Common courtesy and social convention keep issues at a minimum. Any enforcement occurs after discovery. Seems to me that changing expectations and social conventions is the less intrusive and historically accepted approach.

Yes, but there is no real thought about ensuring that girls and women are safe and their privacy is recognized and protected.

Sadly, that is the case regardless of the resolution of trans use.

It further erodes whatever illusions of safety girls and women have. Think about how often the trust of girls and women is betrayed by coaches and physicians working with female athletes. Now, the proposal is to allow trans students in the same locker rooms. Almost all will be perfectly fine, just as almost all coaches and physicians are fine.

It is hard for me to not feel a bit queasy at making that leap of faith that no girl or woman will be harmed.

And that includes trans girls and women.

I feel like that it is possible if transgender issues were taken seriously abroad, we could manage this better. However, even merely providing mental health care over gender dysphoria is controversial and being fought against. If people who have some level of gender dysphoria could receive the mental and physical support they needed, inclusion in private spaces could be more feasible as those with gender dysphoria would be better cared for... and the BS'ers would be eliminated from the system.

But there are people in this thread that want to pretend transgenderism is a choice. Their image is used is negative campaign ads on national television. So we are fighting over whether gender dysphoria exists, whether someone can be Y while X or X while Y or should be forced to endure what they were born with on an organ level. Instead of treating these people with humility and the best care we can.

Some people just need to be dragged into the future, while they are clawing at the ground.

But SEX IS BINARY and that has dominion over everything!!!!!!

 

[Toni]

Nope. Any policy that prevents a trans who has undergone a complete transformation is hurtful.

Tell you what - you come up with a way to allow males who have had penectomies, orchiectomies, vaginoplasties, tracheal shaving, electrolysis or laser hair removal, exogenous estrogen supplements, and whatever else you want to toss into the bag of "complete transformation" into female spaces while ALSO excluding males who have NOT had all of those things OUT... then we can talk.

Because right now, you're effectively arguing for policies that allow ALL MEN OF ANY SORT into female spaces. Come up with a reliable way to sort them out, a way without giant gaping loopholes, and maybe we can make some progress on this topic.

No, I’m not. For example, I’m not saying I should be allowed into female spaces.

At the current time, there is no protocol to insure a priori that female only spaces stay female only. Common courtesy and social convention keep issues at a minimum. Any enforcement occurs after discovery. Seems to me that changing expectations and social conventions is the less intrusive and historically accepted approach.

Yes, but there is no real thought about ensuring that girls and women are safe and their privacy is recognized and protected.

Sadly, that is the case regardless of the resolution of trans use.

It further erodes whatever illusions of safety girls and women have. Think about how often the trust of girls and women is betrayed by coaches and physicians working with female athletes. Now, the proposal is to allow trans students in the same locker rooms. Almost all will be perfectly fine, just as almost all coaches and physicians are fine.

It is hard for me to not feel a bit queasy at making that leap of faith that no girl or woman will be harmed.

And that includes trans girls and women.

I feel like that it is possible if transgender issues were taken seriously abroad, we could manage this better. However, even merely providing mental health care over gender dysphoria is controversial and being fought against. If people who have some level of gender dysphoria could receive the mental and physical support they needed, inclusion in private spaces could be more feasible as those with gender dysphoria would be better cared for... and the BS'ers would be eliminated from the system.

But there are people in this thread that want to pretend transgenderism is a choice. Their image is used is negative campaign ads on national television. So we are fighting over whether gender dysphoria exists, whether someone can be Y while X or X while Y or should be forced to endure what they were born with on an organ level. Instead of treating these people with humility and the best care we can.

Some people just need to be dragged into the future, while they are clawing at the ground.

I think I’m misunderstanding you. Personally, I think right is not dependent on what people abroad do. And I’m not certain who would be considered to be the leader in this issue.

I also cannot help but notice that few males in this thread are willing to address the fact that girls and women have reason to fear.

Men and boys have nothing to lose.

Girls and women potentially have a lot to lose.

It feels as though males are hand waving because they have no skin in the game. They have no increased threat or potential threat to their safety and no increased threat or potential threat to participation in sports.

How does society address the disparity in risk? Or simply the potential for increased risk for girls and women?

Please keep in mind that I absolutely believe that trans individuals exist, are not ‘pretending’ and deserve every respect and safety and opportunity that society provides for the most privileged persons. But I’m not seeing how female vulnerabilities are being addressed. Because it is simply a fact that some few individuals have in fact ‘pretended’ to be trans or at the very least have acted maliciously, exploiting their newfound access to female only space. While these individuals may be a very tiny minority within a very tiny minority, there is nothing suggested to help girls and women to be able to discern who is a risk and who is not.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I feel like that it is possible if transgender issues were taken seriously abroad, we could manage this better. However, even merely providing mental health care over gender dysphoria is controversial and being fought against. If people who have some level of gender dysphoria could receive the mental and physical support they needed, inclusion in private spaces could be more feasible as those with gender dysphoria would be better cared for... and the BS'ers would be eliminated from the system.

But there are people in this thread that want to pretend transgenderism is a choice. Their image is used is negative campaign ads on national television. So we are fighting over whether gender dysphoria exists, whether someone can be Y while X or X while Y or should be forced to endure what they were born with on an organ level. Instead of treating these people with humility and the best care we can.

Some people just need to be dragged into the future, while they are clawing at the ground.

I think I’m misunderstanding you. Personally, I think right is not dependent on what people abroad do. And I’m not certain who would be considered to be the leader in this issue.

When I said abroad, I meant in general, across the board.

I also cannot help but notice that few males in this thread are willing to address the fact that girls and women have reason to fear.

Men and boys have nothing to lose.

Girls and women potentially have a lot to lose.

And in the current climate, I understand and have noted as such. I feel, that if gender dysphoria was not mocked by many in public and used as political fodder, and those with gender dysphoria had appropriate treatment, this fear could become negligible.

It feels as though males are hand waving because they have no skin in the game.

Males are exceptional in this manner.

How does society address the disparity in risk? Or simply the potential for increased risk for girls and women?

It certainly is a rotating process for myself. Typically for problems, I try to identify the risk and mitigate it. As of the moment, the risk is that gender dysphoria isn't taken seriously by too many people, it is mocked, as well as it has been taken advantage of by predators, as can be had especially when too many cracks are in the system, making it easier to game it.

I feel that if gender dysphoria wasn't politicized, treated like a medical condition (of sorts), and people were treated humanely, this could minimize issues with predators as the system is up front and standardized. A system that will be much harder to game. However, this doesn't resolve the other side of the issue of the biology and alarm that is inherent with plain sight. There really is no solution there... I mean other than expecting men to not be assholes to transgender females... in the male locker room, which is kind of the easiest solution as all it requires is men not being intolerant assholes.

I find it curious that the conversation rarely goes to the male side of things. There are women that understandably don't want any type of male in private female spaces for reasons of protection. There are some males that feel likewise... you know for the woman's safety. Yet, when it comes to the transgender female's safety, there doesn't appear to be this inner-focus by those males. Why do these transgender females want to be there? Because they don't feel safe in the men's locker room. It seems odd, that the males that demand transgender females not be in women's rooms, not provide a hand out to them and help them feel safer in men's spaces. And the reason for that is they don't take a transgender female's position as being legitimate. It becomes The Hole in the Bucket. Males are "protecting" women from transgender females... all the while they don't really want those people in their locker room either.

 

[Toni]

I feel like that it is possible if transgender issues were taken seriously abroad, we could manage this better. However, even merely providing mental health care over gender dysphoria is controversial and being fought against. If people who have some level of gender dysphoria could receive the mental and physical support they needed, inclusion in private spaces could be more feasible as those with gender dysphoria would be better cared for... and the BS'ers would be eliminated from the system.

But there are people in this thread that want to pretend transgenderism is a choice. Their image is used is negative campaign ads on national television. So we are fighting over whether gender dysphoria exists, whether someone can be Y while X or X while Y or should be forced to endure what they were born with on an organ level. Instead of treating these people with humility and the best care we can.

Some people just need to be dragged into the future, while they are clawing at the ground.

I think I’m misunderstanding you. Personally, I think right is not dependent on what people abroad do. And I’m not certain who would be considered to be the leader in this issue.

When I said abroad, I meant in general, across the board.

I also cannot help but notice that few males in this thread are willing to address the fact that girls and women have reason to fear.

Men and boys have nothing to lose.

Girls and women potentially have a lot to lose.

And in the current climate, I understand and have noted as such. I feel, that if gender dysphoria was not mocked by many in public and used as political fodder, and those with gender dysphoria had appropriate treatment, this fear could become negligible.

It feels as though males are hand waving because they have no skin in the game.

Males are exceptional in this manner.

How does society address the disparity in risk? Or simply the potential for increased risk for girls and women?

It certainly is a rotating process for myself. Typically for problems, I try to identify the risk and mitigate it. As of the moment, the risk is that gender dysphoria isn't taken seriously by too many people, it is mocked, as well as it has been taken advantage of by predators, as can be had especially when too many cracks are in the system, making it easier to game it.

I feel that if gender dysphoria wasn't politicized, treated like a medical condition (of sorts), and people were treated humanely, this could minimize issues with predators as the system is up front and standardized. A system that will be much harder to game. However, this doesn't resolve the other side of the issue of the biology and alarm that is inherent with plain sight. There really is no solution there... I mean other than expecting men to not be assholes to transgender females... in the male locker room, which is kind of the easiest solution as all it requires is men not being intolerant assholes.

I find it curious that the conversation rarely goes to the male side of things. There are women that understandably don't want any type of male in private female spaces for reasons of protection. There are some males that feel likewise... you know for the woman's safety. Yet, when it comes to the transgender female's safety, there doesn't appear to be this inner-focus by those males. Why do these transgender females want to be there? Because they don't feel safe in the men's locker room. It seems odd, that the males that demand transgender females not be in women's rooms, not provide a hand out to them and help them feel safer in men's spaces. And the reason for that is they don't take a transgender female's position as being legitimate. It becomes The Hole in the Bucket. Males are "protecting" women from transgender females... all the while they don't really want those people in their locker room either.

I’m not certain how universal open acceptance of transgendered individuals protects against those very few malicious individuals who have every intention of gaining more access to preferred victims.

I absolutely do understand why cis men are not afraid of trans men in their intimate spaces. They may be creeped out but afraid? Who wouldn’t want to be them? They don’t perceive females as a threat to their safety. They don’t fear competition from trans men. Not athletically or politically or financially. Or even creatively. Men have that shit all sewed up. Trans women? They are gender traitors. Not ‘real’ men anyway. Ciphers.

Real men don’t fear anything. Didn’t they teach you that?

 

[TomC]

I’m not certain how universal open acceptance of transgendered individuals protects against those very few malicious individuals who have every intention of gaining more access to preferred victims.

To me, this is the biggest part of the problem. Like so many other human issues, a small group of people create the large majority of the problems.

In this particular issue it's mostly men. We are far more prone to physical dominance than our sisters. Far more! As a result trans people are not especially welcome or safe in the men's room or prisons. At the same time women have very good reasons to get upset about male strangers acting oddly, such as using the women's restroom.
Women have plenty of ways of being despicable human beings, but they are typically different from the men.

Tom

 

[Emily Lake]

Nope. Any policy that prevents a trans who has undergone a complete transformation is hurtful.

Tell you what - you come up with a way to allow males who have had penectomies, orchiectomies, vaginoplasties, tracheal shaving, electrolysis or laser hair removal, exogenous estrogen supplements, and whatever else you want to toss into the bag of "complete transformation" into female spaces while ALSO excluding males who have NOT had all of those things OUT... then we can talk.

Because right now, you're effectively arguing for policies that allow ALL MEN OF ANY SORT into female spaces. Come up with a reliable way to sort them out, a way without giant gaping loopholes, and maybe we can make some progress on this topic.

No, I’m not. For example, I’m not saying I should be allowed into female spaces.

At the current time, there is no protocol to insure a priori that female only spaces stay female only. Common courtesy and social convention keep issues at a minimum. Any enforcement occurs after discovery. Seems to me that changing expectations and social conventions is the less intrusive and historically accepted approach.

I'm trying not to bristle, because I respect you and I think you're trying to be reasonable here.

On the other hand... what you think is a "better approach" isn't better for female human beings. You're essentially taking the position that women (female humans) should change our expectations with respect to single-sex facilities, and that we should just roll over and start expecting that males will be in our female spaces - regardless of whether we want them there or not. You're implying that women should relinquish our social conventions regardless of how uncomfortable or intimidated or at risk it makes us, in order to ensure that some males are more satisfied. And you present this as being "less intrusive" even though it's incredibly intrusive for women to be put into a position where we are expected to let strange males look at our nude bodies without consent, or where we're expected to tolerate being exposed to the penises of strange males without consent.

At the end of the day, whether you intend it or not, you're taking the position that women should surrender consent in favor of the desires of men.