Split Trans Issues, Split from Roe v Wade is on deck

[Toni]

Sexual orientation or gender identity should not be used to make it easier for someone who has raped or assaulted someone else to have access to potential victims, no matter the setting, nor should laws intended to support LGBTQIA+ be used to facilitate access to preferred or potential victims.

No one deserves to be sexually assaulted. Everyone deserves to feel and be safe, especially in areas accessible to or funded by the public.

 

[laughing dog]

I find it... interesting I guess... that the many proponents of trans rights, who insist that there is no risk at all to women by allowing men into female spaces if those men say they're women... have nothing at all to say about these two cases.

Mr Merager was found not guilty by a jury according to your link because intent to sexually arouse was not established. Sounds to me that the law is poorly written.

Mr Cox should be in prison. But charges were dropped because of a vague law.

It seems to me that once someone is convicted of a sex crime, gender identity should not be a defense in subsequent sex crime charges.

 

[Jarhyn]

Sexual orientation or gender identity should not be used to make it easier for someone who has raped or assaulted someone else to have access to potential victims, no matter the setting, nor should laws intended to support LGBTQIA+ be used to facilitate access to preferred or potential victims.

No one deserves to be sexually assaulted. Everyone deserves to feel and be safe, especially in areas accessible to or funded by the public.

I would prefer to see all sex pests treated uniformly as "sex pests" and told to use single-user stalls regardless of what they want to do, and if there aren't any to go the fuck without.

Nobody should be housed with their preferred victims regardless of their gender or sex or identity or the identity of their victims.

Rapists of X should not be housed or watered or share facilities with X.

I don't think rapists or molesters should be allowed to be free in our communities without assurances of rehabilitation that simply cannot be presented today.

Going into a space specific to their victim pool so to access their victim pool to create a new victim is something I would treat as an aggravating circumstance to the crime, and I think anyone voting blue would pretty instantly agree with this.

There are solutions to that problem that don't involve throwing trans people under the bus.

 

[Toni]

Unfortunately, there are those who absolutely do wish to target trans people.

Horrendously, there are some very few individuals with nefarious motives who want access to women’s facilities first the purposes of predation. This is pretty rare and it makes it much more difficult to reach consensus that protects everyone from the criminal intentions of a small number of people.

Yes, both groups exist.

Note that the second group should be divided into those who enter in disguise vs those who do so openly. What's the usual scenario? Rest stop or the like, isolated, predator is hiding outside, waiting for a victim to show up. Will laws about trans have any effect on these? No. The only relevant ones are those entering in disguise.

Real world news reports, we see repeated examples of the former. The anti-trans crowd struggles to come up with any evidence for the latter. It's very clear which side is victimized more. That says to me the laws are too restrictive. I care an awful lot more about those who are harmed rather than those simply distressed.

You are too big an asshole to recognize that the fear and vigilance and the loss of any safe space is a genuine harm to people you don’t care about: those without a penis.

Note to Loren: you can have a dick without being a dick.

Completely non-responsive to the actual issue.

I see trans people being harmed. I see anti-trans people doing contortions to try to pretend trans people are causing them harm.

Do you care that women and children ( cis, trans) are being harmed?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

When did I say that trans women should not be allowed in women’s spaces?

And while no, I did not specify in every single post that I included trans women and girls as women and girls, I have specifically mentioned them as being included in more than 1 post.

I don’t want anyone re-traumatized. I imagine being screamed at or attacked by another patron would be pretty traumatic. Possibly dangerous. Why would I want that? For anyone?

Privacy can best be obtained in individual showers with doors.

Which is what I have repeatedly been told is ‘too expensive.’


Before anyone else jumps in and asks about people pretending to be trans—private showers could prevent that by giving women and girls a possible clue to someone with nefarious intentions.

1) Do you see anyone here saying private stalls shouldn't be allowed? We are just saying they shouldn't be mandated.

2) You're not giving said girl a clue about nefarious intentions, you just gave that hypothetical person (which we have no indication of any actual existence of) concealment to sneak up on her.

You're killing people for an illusion of safety.

Privacy in stalks would also be beneficial for those who have scars or other physical differences that they feel uncomfortable displaying in front of others. Loren: this is for you: People are allowed to have feelings and to be less comforts or about exposing themselves to strangers than you are. Deal with it instead of expecting everyone to share whatever beliefs you have atm.

I wish I could make the world safe from sexual assault for everyone. I can’t. But I can and do advocate for private stalls.

The thing is you are advocating a solution that bears a very high cost for the level of benefit.

And before anyone reminds us of the individual who may or may not have genuinely been trans and who attacked female students in the girls’ bathroom at two separate schools while claiming to be trans: obviously a sick individual whose claims may have been true or may not have been. Maybe there should be some kind os disclosure or screening process that also respects the individual’s right to privacy but honestly I don’t know how that would look or work. Schools are staffed by human beings as flawed as the rest of us and that goes double for school boards. I don’t know the best practice here but I’m sure someone will find a workaround to get access to victims or to make some sick point.

We have one questionable case and we have never seen the other side of the story to compare.

This is a situation where clear evidence should exist as legal proceedings certainly should have taken place. Yet we have nothing of the sort, just one report of "wearing a skirt" that got exaggerated in the retelling. Reality: the low quality of the evidence is a very strong indication that it's substantially false.

Individual stalls seem like the best solution even though Loren may choke to death clutching his pearls so tightly at the expense and yes, even though a private stalls can and probably sometimes do provide privacy for sex. Consensual and non-consensual.

What you are missing is that if there is nobody around none of your security is worth anything, and if there are others around the alarm will be sounded. The safety is an illusion.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem is that very few businesses are actually doing that, and there is no political movement to force them to do so. What there is, is an epidemic of hate and violence targeting the most vulnerable of minorities.

Of course there isn't--this isn't about solving the problem, it's about making it impossible to be trans and function in society.

And a bunch of people who have fallen for the propaganda and don't realize they're pawns in this.

 

[laughing dog]

When did I say that trans women should not be allowed in women’s spaces?

And while no, I did not specify in every single post that I included trans women and girls as women and girls, I have specifically mentioned them as being included in more than 1 post.

I don’t want anyone re-traumatized. I imagine being screamed at or attacked by another patron would be pretty traumatic. Possibly dangerous. Why would I want that? For anyone?

Privacy can best be obtained in individual showers with doors.

Which is what I have repeatedly been told is ‘too expensive.’


Before anyone else jumps in and asks about people pretending to be trans—private showers could prevent that by giving women and girls a possible clue to someone with nefarious intentions.

1) Do you see anyone here saying private stalls shouldn't be allowed? We are just saying they shouldn't be mandated.

2) You're not giving said girl a clue about nefarious intentions, you just gave that hypothetical person (which we have no indication of any actual existence of) concealment to sneak up on her.

You're killing people for an illusion of safety.

Privacy in stalks would also be beneficial for those who have scars or other physical differences that they feel uncomfortable displaying in front of others. Loren: this is for you: People are allowed to have feelings and to be less comforts or about exposing themselves to strangers than you are. Deal with it instead of expecting everyone to share whatever beliefs you have atm.

I wish I could make the world safe from sexual assault for everyone. I can’t. But I can and do advocate for private stalls.

The thing is you are advocating a solution that bears a very high cost for the level of benefit.

And before anyone reminds us of the individual who may or may not have genuinely been trans and who attacked female students in the girls’ bathroom at two separate schools while claiming to be trans: obviously a sick individual whose claims may have been true or may not have been. Maybe there should be some kind os disclosure or screening process that also respects the individual’s right to privacy but honestly I don’t know how that would look or work. Schools are staffed by human beings as flawed as the rest of us and that goes double for school boards. I don’t know the best practice here but I’m sure someone will find a workaround to get access to victims or to make some sick point.

We have one questionable case and we have never seen the other side of the story to compare.

This is a situation where clear evidence should exist as legal proceedings certainly should have taken place. Yet we have nothing of the sort, just one report of "wearing a skirt" that got exaggerated in the retelling. Reality: the low quality of the evidence is a very strong indication that it's substantially false.

Individual stalls seem like the best solution even though Loren may choke to death clutching his pearls so tightly at the expense and yes, even though a private stalls can and probably sometimes do provide privacy for sex. Consensual and non-consensual.

What you are missing is that if there is nobody around none of your security is worth anything, and if there are others around the alarm will be sounded. The safety is an illusion.

You are practicing the art of letting perfection get in the way of the good, especially with that illusion of safety bs.

 

[Toni]

When did I say that trans women should not be allowed in women’s spaces?

And while no, I did not specify in every single post that I included trans women and girls as women and girls, I have specifically mentioned them as being included in more than 1 post.

I don’t want anyone re-traumatized. I imagine being screamed at or attacked by another patron would be pretty traumatic. Possibly dangerous. Why would I want that? For anyone?

Privacy can best be obtained in individual showers with doors.

Which is what I have repeatedly been told is ‘too expensive.’


Before anyone else jumps in and asks about people pretending to be trans—private showers could prevent that by giving women and girls a possible clue to someone with nefarious intentions.

1) Do you see anyone here saying private stalls shouldn't be allowed? We are just saying they shouldn't be mandated.

2) You're not giving said girl a clue about nefarious intentions, you just gave that hypothetical person (which we have no indication of any actual existence of) concealment to sneak up on her.

You're killing people for an illusion of safety.

Privacy in stalks would also be beneficial for those who have scars or other physical differences that they feel uncomfortable displaying in front of others. Loren: this is for you: People are allowed to have feelings and to be less comforts or about exposing themselves to strangers than you are. Deal with it instead of expecting everyone to share whatever beliefs you have atm.

I wish I could make the world safe from sexual assault for everyone. I can’t. But I can and do advocate for private stalls.

The thing is you are advocating a solution that bears a very high cost for the level of benefit.

And before anyone reminds us of the individual who may or may not have genuinely been trans and who attacked female students in the girls’ bathroom at two separate schools while claiming to be trans: obviously a sick individual whose claims may have been true or may not have been. Maybe there should be some kind os disclosure or screening process that also respects the individual’s right to privacy but honestly I don’t know how that would look or work. Schools are staffed by human beings as flawed as the rest of us and that goes double for school boards. I don’t know the best practice here but I’m sure someone will find a workaround to get access to victims or to make some sick point.

We have one questionable case and we have never seen the other side of the story to compare.

This is a situation where clear evidence should exist as legal proceedings certainly should have taken place. Yet we have nothing of the sort, just one report of "wearing a skirt" that got exaggerated in the retelling. Reality: the low quality of the evidence is a very strong indication that it's substantially false.

Individual stalls seem like the best solution even though Loren may choke to death clutching his pearls so tightly at the expense and yes, even though a private stalls can and probably sometimes do provide privacy for sex. Consensual and non-consensual.

What you are missing is that if there is nobody around none of your security is worth anything, and if there are others around the alarm will be sounded. The safety is an illusion.

I’m not killing anybody.

Men like you who refuse to hold yourselves and other men accountable for misogyny, anti-LGBTQIA+ sentiment and violence, violence against women and children, sexual violence: YOU are the one killing oeople Loren.

YOU are the one who cried that installing individual stalls to add to women’s sense of security was ‘too expensive .’

You’ve suggested absolutely nothing except that everybody should just get over it and be just like you and not care about any silly little feelings like privacy or safety.

Because it’s not a problem for you. Therefore, it doesn’t exist.

How about you talking about what you and other cis men can and will do to ensure that everyone in men’s bathrooms is safe?

When are straight cis men going to stop attacking gay or trans or queer people in the bathroom? In the street? When will straight cis men stop attacking women and children be they cis or trans or straight if lesbian or queer?

When?

What are you doing about it besides telling cus women we just have to put up with whatever someone with a penis tells us to put up with?


WTAF is it about ‘one questionable case?? ‘ are you talking about the kid who raped two different girls in the girls’ restroom at two different t schools??

You still think that there are two sides to rape? The judge did not.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I can’t think of a better solution than stalls with doors and if society isn’t willing to invest some dollars to protect everyone’s privacy that seems like more of a problem to me. Women’s needs have never mattered much. Well, sexual violence is a much worse problem as is bigotry. I’m all for trying to eliminate that. I do my best to advocate for the demise of bigotry and violence. I have a temper and have had to physically defend myself but at heart, I’m a pacifist and I really do try to be a better one.

Two basic problems:

1) This is a far more expensive "solution" than you think it is. And people aren't going to want to spend the money for what amounts to little true benefit.

2) This isn't about bathrooms at all. This is about making it impossible to exist as a trans person. The people pushing it do not want a solution, they want an insoluble problem. Standard Republican practice these days is to make a problem and blame Democrats for it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I've had my genitals and butt groped against my consent a couple times.

"Why can't women..." Why can't anyone ?!?

Its far from a woman problem.

You're not an approved victim.

Which is what I have repeatedly been told is ‘too expensive.’

The difference is that I don't think it's too expensive. In fact, I really really want to see people forced to actually handle that expense. I WANT the economic turmoil involved. I want to see construction and inconvenience for every last damn asshole who shirked doing it for so fucking long.

You don't realize the problem here: It's not the cost of the facilities. It's the cost of the space and the upkeep. You were recently talking about renting warehouse space. Think of what you're paying for that space (in price per ft^2). Multiply that by a few and figure out many more square feet will be occupied by those facilities. And for existing facilities where does that space come from?? Do you expand your whole building? Do you take out something else? Restrooms already occupy 10-20% of a facility, all-stalls costs you at least 25% more space. It becomes an even bigger issue in things like gyms.

 

[Jarhyn]

WTAF is it about ‘one questionable case?? ‘ are you talking about the kid who raped two different girls in the girls’ restroom at two different t schools??

I think the problem here is as I stated.

Now, I have been calling for gender-agnostic legislation for many years to prevent this and to make this sort of behavior be triggering of the "sex pest" status I was talking about.

They shouldn't be allowed to access victims.

In fact, there are special schools, and later special facilities that can be used to handle and house such persons in isolation, to constrain their ability to effectively be sex pests.

That's where the sex pest should have gone the first time they molested someone in a bathroom.

I can’t think of a better solution than stalls with doors and if society isn’t willing to invest some dollars to protect everyone’s privacy that seems like more of a problem to me. Women’s needs have never mattered much. Well, sexual violence is a much worse problem as is bigotry. I’m all for trying to eliminate that. I do my best to advocate for the demise of bigotry and violence. I have a temper and have had to physically defend myself but at heart, I’m a pacifist and I really do try to be a better one.

Two basic problems:

1) This is a far more expensive "solution" than you think it is. And people aren't going to want to spend the money for what amounts to little true benefit.

I disagree. I want to use it as a vehicle attached with a lot more money for other purposes, to help small businesses and school systems.

If framed the right way, it would be wildly popular with most voters.

I expect that the GOP would fight this tooth and nail for similar reasons as they stand against the proposed law in NY (which stands to be discussed in its own thread).

This would have done a great deal to prevent a certain serial sex pest from molesting.

2) This isn't about bathrooms at all. This is about making it impossible to exist as a trans person. The people pushing it do not want a solution, they want an insoluble problem. Standard Republican practice these days is to make a problem and blame Democrats for it.

Correct. It is not and has not been about bathrooms since it was brought up in 2013ish shortly after I joined. It has always been about this and I was pointing that out way back then.

Still, I think the solution is to throw business a bone in the form of large grants for those businesss which update and a huge school grant for schools.

At this point, though, people are up in arms hysterical about it, and the best thing to do is to answer with a solution that injects some money into this withering economy.

 

[Bomb#20]

You've just always misgendered me.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

... Pretty much everyone refers to Poli as "he", because Poli is a male of the human species. ...

And this is proof that Poli's gender is male. Gender is a social construct, and society evidently constructs the male gender as including people like Poli. I know you don't care about gender, but care or no, you gendered him rightly. "Mis" means "wrongly".

Among the facts not in evidence assumed in Poli's trumped-up accusation are (1) that gender is the same thing as gender identity, (2) that what someone's gender is is up to him or her to decide and that's binding on the rest of us, and (3) that gender ideology's adherents' fervent wish to control how society constructs gender is enough to make them experts on how society constructs gender.

If your philosophy is, essentially, <expletive deleted> what other people think or how they feel if it conflicts with your faith, don't be surprised if people likwewise stop caring about your own pearl-clutching emotional appeals.

Is that how you teach sociology? Unevidenced claims followed up with ad homs against anyone who points them out? There's nothing you can say about me or my mom's weight that will constitute evidence for your claim about Emily.

But that said, if you perceive something I wrote to be faith-based, feel free to point it out. We all need to cultivate a skeptical attitude toward our own premises.

You're one of the few people on this thread I haven't got on ignore, but there's always room for more.

Suit yourself; doesn't bother me a bit. Come to think of it, if you're looking for more people to add, you putting Toni on ignore would cut down on the rate of trumped-up accusations quite a bit. An awful lot of what you've written about her has been libelous -- and so disconnected from what her posts said that you evidently aren't profiting from reading them.

 

[Toni]

WTAF is it about ‘one questionable case?? ‘ are you talking about the kid who raped two different girls in the girls’ restroom at two different t schools??

I think the problem here is as I stated.

Now, I have been calling for gender-agnostic legislation for many years to prevent this and to make this sort of behavior be triggering of the "sex pest" status I was talking about.

They shouldn't be allowed to access victims.

In fact, there are special schools, and later special facilities that can be used to handle and house such persons in isolation, to constrain their ability to effectively be sex pests.

That's where the sex pest should have gone the first time they molested someone in a bathroom.

I can’t think of a better solution than stalls with doors and if society isn’t willing to invest some dollars to protect everyone’s privacy that seems like more of a problem to me. Women’s needs have never mattered much. Well, sexual violence is a much worse problem as is bigotry. I’m all for trying to eliminate that. I do my best to advocate for the demise of bigotry and violence. I have a temper and have had to physically defend myself but at heart, I’m a pacifist and I really do try to be a better one.

Two basic problems:

1) This is a far more expensive "solution" than you think it is. And people aren't going to want to spend the money for what amounts to little true benefit.

I disagree. I want to use it as a vehicle attached with a lot more money for other purposes, to help small businesses and school systems.

If framed the right way, it would be wildly popular with most voters.

I expect that the GOP would fight this tooth and nail for similar reasons as they stand against the proposed law in NY (which stands to be discussed in its own thread).

This would have done a great deal to prevent a certain serial sex pest from molesting.

2) This isn't about bathrooms at all. This is about making it impossible to exist as a trans person. The people pushing it do not want a solution, they want an insoluble problem. Standard Republican practice these days is to make a problem and blame Democrats for it.

Correct. It is not and has not been about bathrooms since it was brought up in 2013ish shortly after I joined. It has always been about this and I was pointing that out way back then.

Still, I think the solution is to throw business a bone in the form of large grants for those businesss which update and a huge school grant for schools.

At this point, though, people are up in arms hysterical about it, and the best thing to do is to answer with a solution that injects some money into this withering economy.

Ok, but again: my ONLY concern about trans individuals in women’s locker rooms ( women’s/girls bathrooms all have stalls with doors in my experience) has been about potential trauma/re-traumatization. For anyone. Until Emily brought instances of persons physically attacking others, I had not heard of such.

I can, however, very well imagine it potentially being extremely traumatic for the victim of assault to unexpectedly be co fronted with a naked make appearing body in what they believe is a safe space.

I’m typing this out for those few individuals who might not be aware but: surprise is quite often an element of assault. You think you are safe, have no reason to suspect otherwise when the person next to you begins to do something highly inappropriate and worse.

Assaults can cause PTSD. For myself, my little sister once came up behind me while I was washing dishes. She was about to do the kid: Boo! I was, at the time, washing a large shao knife and I whirled around. Fortunately I realized before I was completely 180 that this was my little sister and not the person who liked to sneak up behind me and grab a breast or my crotch, etc ( which he randomly did after the time he had knocked me down and told me he was going to fuck me) and so I not plunge that knife into her stomach. Probably yelled at her though about sneaking up on someone with a knife. Of course she had no idea what had happened. Or that she had almost been stabbed. Thankfully.

So when I wrote that people can be re-traumatized it is not because the sight of a naked male appearing body is so horrible or frightening. It is because PTSD—which, btw, I had never heard of at the time I almost killed my sister—can be debilitating and dangerous, precisely because it’s unexpected. I don’t want that fior anybody. Not that anyone is typically armed in a shower room or locker room.

That’s it. That’s the whole issue for me. Someone might be badly traumatized—and I’m including the trans people here-or physically hurt.

It’s not something silly or trivial for anyone to deal with. It can happen long after you are sure you are ok.

I know that you know this but if someone is reading this who never considered just how bad it can be: maybe this is a start of a wake up call.

Probably not. But not because I didn’t try.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That doesn’t mean that any of those people did not abhor sexual violence. They just did not want to or know how to deal with the actual fact that it involved a family member/someone they knew and not a big scary black stranger.

Like... the media portrayal of trans women in bathrooms. A terrifying, hulking rapist in a bad muumuu, leering at the passersby.

Which is why I see anti-trans hysteria as the opposite of protecting women. It's making a scapegoat of innocent, scared teenage girls, while actual rapists seldom face serious consequences.

And now every woman who is large, hairy, or wears a mumu will now feel less safe going to the bathroom.

Its almost like these "women" who back such efforts are really just judgemental assholes encouraging stochastic violence against insufficiently "feminine" women.

Sigh.

If people don't like the fact that women are indoctrinated --and for very good reason---to fear unexpected male appearing persons who are naked in women's only spots, then maybe men can start to be better about teaching each other not to violate other people's boundaries and not to touch or leer or make remarks much sexually assault other people.

Your indoctrination is wrong. You should be looking at the same thing we look at--signs of being a predator.

And tell us exactly HOW IN HELL WE ARE SUPPOSED TO DIFFERENTIATE IN THE MOMENT BETWEEN A PERSON WHO IS TRANS AND SAFE (they are not all safe, btw) FROM SOMEONE WHO IS ACTUALLY A THREAT? In the moment. When we are extremely vulnerable, not dressed, not expecting anything other than other women.

How many times is there actually a man hunting for victims in a women's facility?? You have failed to establish there is a realistic risk other than in isolated situations--where your magical "women" sign provides no protection.

Quit attacking us and quit blaming us. We didn't start the fire

There wasn't a problem with trans people in women's rooms until the reich wing decided to use it to scare people.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Unless you're a trans girl, and seeking a place of safety gets you attacked by fellow women.

And we have an actual well-documented example of such a rape.

 

[thebeave]

That doesn’t mean that any of those people did not abhor sexual violence. They just did not want to or know how to deal with the actual fact that it involved a family member/someone they knew and not a big scary black stranger.

Like... the media portrayal of trans women in bathrooms. A terrifying, hulking rapist in a bad muumuu, leering at the passersby.

Which is why I see anti-trans hysteria as the opposite of protecting women. It's making a scapegoat of innocent, scared teenage girls, while actual rapists seldom face serious consequences.

And now every woman who is large, hairy, or wears a mumu will now feel less safe going to the bathroom.

Its almost like these "women" who back such efforts are really just judgemental assholes encouraging stochastic violence against insufficiently "feminine" women.

Sigh.

If people don't like the fact that women are indoctrinated --and for very good reason---to fear unexpected male appearing persons who are naked in women's only spots, then maybe men can start to be better about teaching each other not to violate other people's boundaries and not to touch or leer or make remarks much sexually assault other people.

Your indoctrination is wrong. You should be looking at the same thing we look at--signs of being a predator.

And tell us exactly HOW IN HELL WE ARE SUPPOSED TO DIFFERENTIATE IN THE MOMENT BETWEEN A PERSON WHO IS TRANS AND SAFE (they are not all safe, btw) FROM SOMEONE WHO IS ACTUALLY A THREAT? In the moment. When we are extremely vulnerable, not dressed, not expecting anything other than other women.

How many times is there actually a man hunting for victims in a women's facility?? You have failed to establish there is a realistic risk other than in isolated situations--where your magical "women" sign provides no protection.

Quit attacking us and quit blaming us. We didn't start the fire

There wasn't a problem with trans people in women's rooms until the reich wing decided to use it to scare people.

This is not a "reich wing" thing! Just stop it. You need to watch the video in this link below. I'm 100% behind this lady, who hardly fits the profile of a scare mongering "reich winger". She is being very reasonable, and speaking from personal experience:

Trans Women's Locker Room War Hyman vs. Wiener ... Singer Clashes w/State Sen.

BTW, in case you don't know, Scott Wiener (the man in the video) is a shoo-in for Nancy Pelosi's spot, come November. So, he is not some random man from some podunk town. He's going to be wielding some real power soon.

 

[Toni]

That doesn’t mean that any of those people did not abhor sexual violence. They just did not want to or know how to deal with the actual fact that it involved a family member/someone they knew and not a big scary black stranger.

Like... the media portrayal of trans women in bathrooms. A terrifying, hulking rapist in a bad muumuu, leering at the passersby.

Which is why I see anti-trans hysteria as the opposite of protecting women. It's making a scapegoat of innocent, scared teenage girls, while actual rapists seldom face serious consequences.

And now every woman who is large, hairy, or wears a mumu will now feel less safe going to the bathroom.

Its almost like these "women" who back such efforts are really just judgemental assholes encouraging stochastic violence against insufficiently "feminine" women.

Sigh.

If people don't like the fact that women are indoctrinated --and for very good reason---to fear unexpected male appearing persons who are naked in women's only spots, then maybe men can start to be better about teaching each other not to violate other people's boundaries and not to touch or leer or make remarks much sexually assault other people.

Your indoctrination is wrong. You should be looking at the same thing we look at--signs of being a predator.

And tell us exactly HOW IN HELL WE ARE SUPPOSED TO DIFFERENTIATE IN THE MOMENT BETWEEN A PERSON WHO IS TRANS AND SAFE (they are not all safe, btw) FROM SOMEONE WHO IS ACTUALLY A THREAT? In the moment. When we are extremely vulnerable, not dressed, not expecting anything other than other women.

How many times is there actually a man hunting for victims in a women's facility?? You have failed to establish there is a realistic risk other than in isolated situations--where your magical "women" sign provides no protection.

Quit attacking us and quit blaming us. We didn't start the fire

There wasn't a problem with trans people in women's rooms until the reich wing decided to use it to scare people.

We DO look at who might be a predator

You all look alike.

Yeah, I’m talking to you, you rape apologist. YOU are part of the problem.

YOU think YOU have a right to tell us what we MUST accept.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why is it the responsibility of women to ignore our fears? Which are well founded?

Why is it the responsibility of Faux Noise viewers to ignore their fears of people of color? Which, according to Faux, are well founded.

Why is it not the responsibility of men to quit attacking others?

Of course it is, but that doesn't change the situation.

If you are looking to me to find a solution, I’ve offered the best I can.

There isn't a problem that needs solving.

I have never suggested that trans women and girls do not belong in women only spaces. I’ve pointed out that some women might have an experience based PTSD reaction to being confronted with some naked stranger with a penis in a women’s only space. They might experience panic, fear, that’s just a fact.

I’ve stated repeatedly that all people deserve to feel safe and secure especially in locker rooms, dressing rooms, restrooms, etc.

That means all persons

And the real world effect of your position is to kill people.

 

[laughing dog]

Why is it the responsibility of women to ignore our fears? Which are well founded?

Why is it the responsibility of Faux Noise viewers to ignore their fears of people of color? Which, according to Faux, are well founded.

From what I can tell, women’s fears about sexual assault arise from their personal experiences, not propaganda purveyors.

Your patronizing and dumb analogy actually strengthens Toni’s point about your apparent disrespect for women.

 

[Toni]

Why is it the responsibility of women to ignore our fears? Which are well founded?

Why is it the responsibility of Faux Noise viewers to ignore their fears of people of color? Which, according to Faux, are well founded.

Why is it not the responsibility of men to quit attacking others?

Of course it is, but that doesn't change the situation.

If you are looking to me to find a solution, I’ve offered the best I can.

There isn't a problem that needs solving.

I have never suggested that trans women and girls do not belong in women only spaces. I’ve pointed out that some women might have an experience based PTSD reaction to being confronted with some naked stranger with a penis in a women’s only space. They might experience panic, fear, that’s just a fact.

I’ve stated repeatedly that all people deserve to feel safe and secure especially in locker rooms, dressing rooms, restrooms, etc.

That means all persons

And the real world effect of your position is to kill people.

Actually, I've very carefully illustrated that I know from deep personal experience that being startled or re-triggered by a past trauma can be very dangerous for other people. Which is why I have advocated for universal stalls with doors.

Which you, without any data or cost analysis, insists is too expensive or takes up too much space.

Doors on stalls do not kill anyone.

I understand that this is not a problem that affects you, personally so please feel free to fuck all the way off in this discussion. You are not going to be traumatized in a woman's dressing room by a pre/non-surgical trans woman nor are you a transwoman who will be traumatized by another woman freaking out because they have PTSD from prior assaults.

It's not going to hurt you a little bit if women have doors on stalls in their dressing room. It's not going to hurt anyone one little bit if women have doors on stalls in dressing rooms.

No one is getting killed by doors on dressing rooms.

Men, however, are making the world more dangerous by being so dangerous for women, cis and trans and other men and children to be around.