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

[Emily Lake]

Sometimes, abortion is necessary or extremely desirable after the first two trimesters. A fatal fetal abnormality may not be discovered until late into the pregnancy. Death for the fetus is inevitable and likely painful. Continuing the pregnancy is dangerous for the mother’s health.

Thus the ever present and common allowance for risk to the mother and severe abnormality. Which I've covered repeatedly. And which was part of the standard under RvW.

Yes, this is rare but not so rare as we might wish it to be. Third trimester abortions are also rare, but not so rare as we might wish.

It is absolutely not the job of you or me or any legislator or judge to decide the amount of danger or deleterious health effects are sufficient t to allow a girl or woman to choose abortion.

But it's reasonable to expect that some danger our deleterious health effect should be present, don't you agree? Do you think it's unreasonable to think that there should be some actual medical reason that late in the game?

 

[Emily Lake]

Ah, Im sorry: I don’t think I was completely following. I agree that deliberately exposing genitals in the ladies room is generally indecent exposure, no matter who ( assuming over the age when one can be responsible for such).

I'll add a caveat here... deliberately exposing male genitals in a women's changing room or similar is indecent exposure. Women being naked in a space where women are expected to be naked is not indecent exposure.

I'm rather of the opinion that males being in women's intimate areas are engaging in voyeurism and shouldn't be there at all. In the extremely rare situation where a male has had a complete penectomy and orchiectomy (including removal of the scrotal sac) and a whole bunch of cosmetic procedures to be able to effectively mimic the appearance of a female human being... they're not going to be noticed, and so they can bypass the laws, even though they shouldn't. Much the same way that a person jaywalking in the middle of the night when there are no cars around is bypassing laws against jaywalking, but they get away with it because nobody knows. It's still a violation of the law, but it's unknown and arguably unknowable.

On the other hand... I'm simply not willing to trust that the random male-looking male who is obviously male and is in a space where women are naked or vulnerable is a "safe" male who must think of himself as a woman in some ephemeral and mystically-feminine-souled way.

I don't think it's reasonable or appropriate to expect women to take on EVEN MORE RISK than we already have to deal with, just so that some few men feel validated and included as something that they categorically are not.

If you wouldn't support adults who profess to have the identity of a child hanging out with school kids in order to feel validated and included, and to void the possibility of being harassed for their little-kid-identity, then I don't think you should support males who profess to have the identity of a woman hanging out in women's intimate spaces either.

There are many other ways we can all support allowing people to express their gender preferences in society - including and foremost expecting men to be accepting of men who don't conform to their standard of manliness.

 

[Emily Lake]

Flashing really is less bad than farts, amirite?

I don’t really know, never having been “flashed” except a couple of times when I was being enticed by women. Just tits though - and far be it from me to object or try to stifle such behavior, even though such exposure reduces or eliminates the appeal of the “flasher”.
But those farts (more accurately shit explosions) definitely delivered FAR more unpleasantness. Give me the flasher every time! Of course YMMV.
In fact - the reason I mentioned it, was that it made me consider going to one of the all-gender “private” changing rooms, especially since they’re rarely both in use.

Oh, and btw, women OR men who prefer privacy enough to walk an extra 25-30 feet, are welcome to do so.

The only cases of people ever kicked out for indecent exposure afaik, happened right in the main pool area and I never suffered the trauma of having to witness any of it. But I haven’t lived a TOTALLY sheltered existence:
Once I was walking the beach in Kalihiwai - a small cove on Kauai - and a couple of Haoles, the only other two people in the beach, were walking naively close to the shore break and got caught by a wave that was about time and a half overhead. I saw it happen and rushed down the beach ready to drag someone out unconscious. (That beach has killed a few people because of the sand shelf just a few feet off shore).
But they both came up, coughing and gagging. She was missing her top, and he was butt naked. They were both freaking out but managed to scramble to their towel setup. I almost drowned myself, laughing. But I am learning that my experience would have traumatized some people around here.
I only remember that she had a fine set, which she could barely contain in her hands as she struggled up the beach.
Haoles!

I get what you’re saying but afaik, a woman flashing her tit —or crotch at you was unlikely to lead to actual sexual assault.

Men who flash, otoh, usually start out harmless but can and do progress to bolder actions. Unfortunately, it’s not easy to know who is harmless and who is only on step 1 of their planned assault.

It may sound ridiculous but keep in mind that throughout history right up to this minute and in the foreseeable future, women and girls, even little girls, are often blamed for tempting men and boys to sin. Abd are blamed for what they wear, what Abd how much they drink, what shoes they were wearing, being alone at night, going to a bar alone or with friends, accepting a ride from someone who assaults them and so on and so on and so on.

Women have a lot riding in not being too relaxed around the ‘wrong’ person and since perverts do not come with warning labels tattooed across their foreheads, we have to chose between making a fuss over nothing or putting ourselves or others in danger.

Either way, we will be judged harshly for it. And blamed.

Rule 1 of Misogyny: Women are responsible for what men do.

 

[Playball40]

I get what you’re saying but afaik, a woman flashing her tit —or crotch at you was unlikely to lead to actual sexual assault.

Men who flash, otoh, usually start out harmless but can and do progress to bolder actions. Unfortunately, it’s not easy to know who is harmless and who is only on step 1 of their planned assault.

It may sound ridiculous but keep in mind that throughout history right up to this minute and in the foreseeable future, women and girls, even little girls, are often blamed for tempting men and boys to sin. Abd are blamed for what they wear, what Abd how much they drink, what shoes they were wearing, being alone at night, going to a bar alone or with friends, accepting a ride from someone who assaults them and so on and so on and so on.

Women have a lot riding in not being too relaxed around the ‘wrong’ person and since perverts do not come with warning labels tattooed across their foreheads, we have to chose between making a fuss over nothing or putting ourselves or others in danger.

Either way, we will be judged harshly for it. And blamed.

You are mixing up separate categories.

Flashers are about shocking their victims. It's not a prelude to rape.

While it would be possible for a rapist to enter already naked it would only be as part of an attack. They're not going to stand around and put you on your guard. Thus a penis not moving towards you is almost certainly not intending to rape you.

Actually flashers often graduate to sexual assault (not all). It is a red flag without doubt.

 

[Playball40]

I get what you’re saying but afaik, a woman flashing her tit —or crotch at you was unlikely to lead to actual sexual assault.

Men who flash, otoh, usually start out harmless but can and do progress to bolder actions. Unfortunately, it’s not easy to know who is harmless and who is only on step 1 of their planned assault.

It may sound ridiculous but keep in mind that throughout history right up to this minute and in the foreseeable future, women and girls, even little girls, are often blamed for tempting men and boys to sin. Abd are blamed for what they wear, what Abd how much they drink, what shoes they were wearing, being alone at night, going to a bar alone or with friends, accepting a ride from someone who assaults them and so on and so on and so on.

Women have a lot riding in not being too relaxed around the ‘wrong’ person and since perverts do not come with warning labels tattooed across their foreheads, we have to chose between making a fuss over nothing or putting ourselves or others in danger.

Either way, we will be judged harshly for it. And blamed.

You are mixing up separate categories.

Flashers are about shocking their victims. It's not a prelude to rape.

While it would be possible for a rapist to enter already naked it would only be as part of an attack. They're not going to stand around and put you on your guard. Thus a penis not moving towards you is almost certainly not intending to rape you.

Indeed, flashers do sometimes escalate to actual assault.

Regardless of what men like to think, penises do not think or move of their own volition. Yes, I’m aware that erections/loss of erections is somewhat involuntary but penises do not advance on victims without the cooperation of the brain, body, limbs of the possessor.

Regardless of how you feel, or what you believe, some people do indeed expose their erections in an attempt to cause emotional distress in victims.

You are not female. You are not, as far as I know, a victim of sexual abuse by anyone, male or female. You seem to have a very difficult time imagining how someone else might feel. Just because an experience or feeling is foreign to you, it does not mean those experiences and feelings do not exist, even if you do not share or understand them.

I personally do not understand how anybody can care a lick about football or whiskey but I respect that they do.

I still don't know how a "penis" in a restroom has any bearing on restroom use. I get it. It scares you to see a penis in a typically all female location. But how is this different than the days of segregation, claiming it scared white people to see black people in 'typically all white' locations? You can claim, skin color is not voluntary and I will claim that neither is gender. It is not the transgendered woman's fault they may have a "penis" and should not be lumped in with flashers or rapists in any way.

 

[Playball40]

Your reading comprehension is lacking. There's no way to tell whether a male is "sincerely trans" or "exploiting a giant gaping loophole".

Yes there is. This has been discussed. It's in the comment chain, in the part you trimmed disingenuously, and it this is also not what you actually said. You said we could not differentiate those, and I quote,

who think of themselves as women and ... who just don't think about it at all

Then I proved you wrong.

Just fucking own it for once.

Maybe, you yourself can, and I quote:

just not trim my post disingenuously

If you could manage that, there might be less grounds to believe you a massive fucking hypocrite.

To an outside observer, there is no way to tell whether the man in lipstick genuinely thinks of himself as a woman, or whether he's a predator taking advantage of laws that give men the privilege to override women's boundaries whenever the hell they want to.

And I will reiterate, an empty fucking sack is a very clear way to tell.

If you show a woman your empty sack without consent, you're committing a sex crime.

So you're punishing a transgendered woman for the "potential" actions of a man? No, that's simply not right as a man can walk into a 'woman' only space NOW - allowing a TG woman comfort/privacy in a RR does not change or increase that. Denying ones rights because "you're afraid" is not a legitimate reason and is the exact same 'reason' given to continue segration.

 

[Toni]

I get what you’re saying but afaik, a woman flashing her tit —or crotch at you was unlikely to lead to actual sexual assault.

Men who flash, otoh, usually start out harmless but can and do progress to bolder actions. Unfortunately, it’s not easy to know who is harmless and who is only on step 1 of their planned assault.

It may sound ridiculous but keep in mind that throughout history right up to this minute and in the foreseeable future, women and girls, even little girls, are often blamed for tempting men and boys to sin. Abd are blamed for what they wear, what Abd how much they drink, what shoes they were wearing, being alone at night, going to a bar alone or with friends, accepting a ride from someone who assaults them and so on and so on and so on.

Women have a lot riding in not being too relaxed around the ‘wrong’ person and since perverts do not come with warning labels tattooed across their foreheads, we have to chose between making a fuss over nothing or putting ourselves or others in danger.

Either way, we will be judged harshly for it. And blamed.

You are mixing up separate categories.

Flashers are about shocking their victims. It's not a prelude to rape.

While it would be possible for a rapist to enter already naked it would only be as part of an attack. They're not going to stand around and put you on your guard. Thus a penis not moving towards you is almost certainly not intending to rape you.

Indeed, flashers do sometimes escalate to actual assault.

Regardless of what men like to think, penises do not think or move of their own volition. Yes, I’m aware that erections/loss of erections is somewhat involuntary but penises do not advance on victims without the cooperation of the brain, body, limbs of the possessor.

Regardless of how you feel, or what you believe, some people do indeed expose their erections in an attempt to cause emotional distress in victims.

You are not female. You are not, as far as I know, a victim of sexual abuse by anyone, male or female. You seem to have a very difficult time imagining how someone else might feel. Just because an experience or feeling is foreign to you, it does not mean those experiences and feelings do not exist, even if you do not share or understand them.

I personally do not understand how anybody can care a lick about football or whiskey but I respect that they do.

I still don't know how a "penis" in a restroom has any bearing on restroom use. I get it. It scares you to see a penis in a typically all female location. But how is this different than the days of segregation, claiming it scared white people to see black people in 'typically all white' locations? You can claim, skin color is not voluntary and I will claim that neither is gender. It is not the transgendered woman's fault they may have a "penis" and should not be lumped in with flashers or rapists in any way.

Personally, I would not be scared. I've showered in a mixed groups without any fear or hesitation.

Generally speaking there are not penises visible in a woman's bathroom even if it includes pre/non-surgical trans women because women's bathrooms have stalls with doors. Of course sometimes a woman or girl takes their small son or little brother into the ladies because they aren't old enough to go alone into the mens. But again, almost always, in the bathroom, genitals are not exposed except behind closed doors.

What IS different is that traditionally, naked male bodies in women's dressing rooms/locker rooms absolutely were there ONLY for nefarious reasons. Think of it as a form of flashing for some people. Doing it in a womens only space is an escalation. What would be next? Masturbation? Attempting to touch a girl or woman?

Men in women's dressing rooms has been an obvious violation of social norms since public restrooms were divided by sex. The prohibitions were both for modesty and for safety.

Prohibiting someone who is not white from using a white bathroom/dressing room/drinking fountain/hospital ward/section of a theater or bus was purely for racist reasons. There was no genuine threat to modesty or to physical safety based on race.

Please note that I do not advocate for prohibiting trans individuals from using whatever facilities they feel comfortable in---or making them feel uncomfortable for their choices. Universal stall doors on showers, dressing areas, etc. would remove most if not all potential for anyone to be traumatized by unexpectedly seeing a naked person with a penis next to them. The world is full of rape victims and victims of other types of sexual assault--male victims, female victims, cis and trans, intersex, etc. Dressing rooms/showers/bathroom facilities should feel and be safe places for everyone. Being confronted by unexpectedly seeing a naked person whose anatomy resembles that of your assailant in what you thought was a safe space, while you yourself are in some state of undress could easily be terrifying and could provoke all sorts of negative reactions, none of which would be desirable for ANYONE including the naked trans woman who certainly does not deserve to be screamed at or attacked for simply wanting to take a shower. When I wrote that women and girls could be traumatized, I meant ALL women, not just cis women.

Upthread I described how I almost stabbed my sister in the stomach when she came up behind me while I was at the sink, washing dishes and had a big sharp knife in my hands. It was PTSD: someone used to be very fond of coming up behind me and grabbing my breasts or my crotch or whispering disgusting things in my ear. I am extremely grateful that before I competed the 180 with the knife held out, I realized it was my sister and not that disgusting person. I did yell at her a bit because I had a knife in my hand and 'somebody could have gotten hurt.' It took a while before my heart beat returned to normal. And, btw, we were both fully clothed, standing in a very safe place---but then the groping, the attempted rape, the attempted murder, was always in a 'safe place' as well.

So when I say that I can imagine that someone could have a terrible reaction, I'm speaking from experience that thankfully was far short of me killing my sister.

One way that victims of assault recover is to take care of themselves physically by visiting a pool or a gym. Showering is expected. Being with people whose bodies appear to be of the opposite sex is not expected. If it were to come to pass that women were expected to just tolerate whoever came into a woman's shower or if there were no longer women only showers, a lot of assault victims would simply not go to the gym. Their recovery would be delayed.

Please note again: I am not advocating for a ban on trans women and girls: I'm advocating for universal doors on individual showers, dressing rooms, etc.

 

[Emily Lake]

So you're punishing a transgendered woman for the "potential" actions of a man? No, that's simply not right as a man can walk into a 'woman' only space NOW - allowing a TG woman comfort/privacy in a RR does not change or increase that. Denying ones rights because "you're afraid" is not a legitimate reason and is the exact same 'reason' given to continue segration.

Transgendered women ARE men. They are unquestionably and undeniably males of the human species.

Why are you so dedicated to ensuring that any man who claims to be a woman with words alone gets to enter female-only intimate spaces? Why are you determined to let any man say the password and get to ogle women to their heart's content and women aren't allowed to say no?

 

[Emily Lake]

@Loren Pechtel , @Jimmy Higgins , @Playball40 , @Politesse , @Jarhyn , and anyone else I may have missed...

Which of the following locations do you believe that male human beings who have said they identify as women should be given the legal right to access, and in which female human beings are denied the right to object to their presence?

• Bathrooms
• Gym and Pool Showers
• Changing Rooms
• Prisons & Jails
• Long Term Care Facilities & Nursing Homes

 

[Elixir]

There's no way to tell whether a male is "sincerely trans" or "exploiting a giant gaping loophole".

Vilifying all trans is the obvious "solution". Avoid, shun, just stay away! If they come at you don't provoke a confrontation, just RUN AWAY! They probably can't catch you in those high heels anyway.

Oh wait.
Did you mean a person who was born female who now identifies as male and features male sexual paraphernalia? No worries - the same thing applies. I know that's what I do; I've heard too many stories!
Okay, my apology for making light of what is no doubt seriously traumatic for some people, and I know violence has been wrought upon women since time immemorial. But man, woman or child, straight, bi, gay, trans, whatever, by far the biggest threat, the most damage done to all categories, is wrought by straight males - men.
I don't think elevating subcategories' threat level by criteria other than perhaps violent criminal record, is a helpful pursuit. Other than that, the most effective measure for avoiding harm has always been to have good judgment, stay alert to possible threats and elevate your situational awareness to minimize exposure.
In a word, don't drink at parties, regardless of your sex or gender. You could end up in jail or hurt by someone who ended up in jail.

 

[laughing dog]

There's no way to tell whether a male is "sincerely trans" or "exploiting a giant gaping loophole".

Visually, I agree. Otherwise, nope.

 

[Jarhyn]

There's no way to tell whether a male is "sincerely trans" or "exploiting a giant gaping loophole".

Visually, I agree. Otherwise, nope.

Exactly. She's just straight up wrong.

And did you get a load of that last post she made with the dishonestly framed question?

If someone has: discussed with a psychologist for a year (expensive and time consuming), gone onto HRT (also expensive and time consuming), and gone through the bother of getting their markers changed (less expensive, but still time consuming), and thinks about it every day to the point that they changed their wardrobe (expensive and time consuming one a DAILY basis for most trans women), we can observably see how this is different from the framing Emily presents.

Personally, I would ask that people be given the right to get "bottom surgery pt. 1" as an insurance benefit, and possibly even "pt. 2". Then we could go as far as to expect that much too.

But this is NOT how the misleading question is framed. It isn't framed in either regard to accept a yes/no answer without violating the requirements I have myself been presenting for years as a reasonable expectation.

Personally, I would obviate all the expensiveness, and keep it to just "time consuming" burdensomeness, but again, a dishonest framing doesn't allow this kind of answer. It's "newspeak" in its own way: rhetoric designed to prevent nuanced conversation.

 

[Bomb#20]

... penises do not advance on victims without the cooperation of the brain, body, limbs of the possessor.

Regardless of how you feel, or what you believe, some people do indeed expose their erections in an attempt to cause emotional distress in victims.

You are not female. You are not, as far as I know, a victim of sexual abuse by anyone, male or female. You seem to have a very difficult time imagining how someone else might feel. ...

I still don't know how a "penis" in a restroom has any bearing on restroom use. I get it. It scares you to see a penis in a typically all female location. But how is this different than the days of segregation, claiming it scared white people to see black people in 'typically all white' locations? You can claim, skin color is not voluntary and I will claim that neither is gender. It is not the transgendered woman's fault they may have a "penis" and should not be lumped in with flashers or rapists in any way.

... To an outside observer, there is no way to tell whether the man in lipstick genuinely thinks of himself as a woman, or whether he's a predator taking advantage of laws that give men the privilege to override women's boundaries whenever the hell they want to. ...

So you're punishing a transgendered woman for the "potential" actions of a man? No, that's simply not right as a man can walk into a 'woman' only space NOW - allowing a TG woman comfort/privacy in a RR does not change or increase that. Denying ones rights because "you're afraid" is not a legitimate reason and is the exact same 'reason' given to continue segration.

So what exactly are you arguing for here? Do you mean that for the sake of their comfort/privacy we should let biological males use typically all female locations if they identify as female, the same way we now allow black people to use typically all white locations if they identify as white?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

@Loren Pechtel , @Jimmy Higgins , @Playball40 , @Politesse , @Jarhyn , and anyone else I may have missed...

Which of the following locations do you believe that male human beings who have said they identify as women should be given the legal right to access, and in which female human beings are denied the right to object to their presence?

• Bathrooms
• Gym and Pool Showers
• Changing Rooms
• Prisons & Jails
• Long Term Care Facilities & Nursing Homes

If you aren't going to bother reading my posts and bother to remember what I've posted on this subject (which is off-topic), why are you calling me out?

 

[Toni]

... penises do not advance on victims without the cooperation of the brain, body, limbs of the possessor.

Regardless of how you feel, or what you believe, some people do indeed expose their erections in an attempt to cause emotional distress in victims.

You are not female. You are not, as far as I know, a victim of sexual abuse by anyone, male or female. You seem to have a very difficult time imagining how someone else might feel. ...

I still don't know how a "penis" in a restroom has any bearing on restroom use. I get it. It scares you to see a penis in a typically all female location. But how is this different than the days of segregation, claiming it scared white people to see black people in 'typically all white' locations? You can claim, skin color is not voluntary and I will claim that neither is gender. It is not the transgendered woman's fault they may have a "penis" and should not be lumped in with flashers or rapists in any way.

... To an outside observer, there is no way to tell whether the man in lipstick genuinely thinks of himself as a woman, or whether he's a predator taking advantage of laws that give men the privilege to override women's boundaries whenever the hell they want to. ...

So you're punishing a transgendered woman for the "potential" actions of a man? No, that's simply not right as a man can walk into a 'woman' only space NOW - allowing a TG woman comfort/privacy in a RR does not change or increase that. Denying ones rights because "you're afraid" is not a legitimate reason and is the exact same 'reason' given to continue segration.

So what exactly are you arguing for here? Do you mean that for the sake of their comfort/privacy we should let biological males use typically all female locations if they identify as female, the same way we now allow black people to use typically all white locations if they identify as white?

This is a disgusting analogy.

It is not racist not is it terf to want everybody to feel and to be safe using the restrooms and dressing rooms they feel most comfortable using.

Doors on stalls, which, btw, I’ve seen on every all gender/family restroom I’ve ever been in as well as women’s/girls bathrooms should remove most of the anxiety and discomfort for all.

I understand that men find some sort of….comradery in standing next to each other in a public restroom. Cool. Women share the same as we fix our hair or make up or ask for a tampon. But private stalls even between very good friends is the norm for women.

Men can just get their thrills elsewhere.

 

[TomC]

I still don't know how a "penis" in a restroom has any bearing on restroom use. I get it. It scares you to see a penis in a typically all female location. But how is this different than the days of segregation, claiming it scared white people to see black people in 'typically all white' locations?

This is a terrible argument.
Two major categories of reasons.
For one thing that "separate but equal" thing was completely bullshit. The separate part was definite, but the equal part simply didn't exist. That's not the case for sex segregation. Every women's room has a comparable men's room. Same for sports leagues and prisons and everything else important.

Even more importantly, the difference between people of different races is literally skin deep. The difference between people of different sexes is vastly larger. Males are the pervy rapey sex. We just are. Most of us outgrow that kind of behavior and learn to treat women with respect. But not all and when we don't the results can be incredibly ugly. So most females are taught from a young age to be suspicious of male strangers, especially when they are behaving oddly. That includes using the women's restroom.

One of the weirdest concepts in this conversation is the idea that male women feel unsafe in the men's room, so males are entitled to use the women's room. WTF?
Tom

 

[Bomb#20]

I still don't know how a "penis" in a restroom has any bearing on restroom use. I get it. It scares you to see a penis in a typically all female location. But how is this different than the days of segregation, claiming it scared white people to see black people in 'typically all white' locations? You can claim, skin color is not voluntary and I will claim that neither is gender. It is not the transgendered woman's fault they may have a "penis" and should not be lumped in with flashers or rapists in any way.

So you're punishing a transgendered woman for the "potential" actions of a man? No, that's simply not right as a man can walk into a 'woman' only space NOW - allowing a TG woman comfort/privacy in a RR does not change or increase that. Denying ones rights because "you're afraid" is not a legitimate reason and is the exact same 'reason' given to continue segration.

So what exactly are you arguing for here? Do you mean that for the sake of their comfort/privacy we should let biological males use typically all female locations if they identify as female, the same way we now allow black people to use typically all white locations if they identify as white?

This is a disgusting analogy.

What analogy are you calling disgusting? Do you mean the one Playball and Loren keep pushing, the one where they argue women-only restrooms are analogous to whites-only restrooms? Or do you mean my counterargument against their analogy was itself a disgusting analogy? My point was that the PB/LP segregation argument is internally incoherent -- if their analogy were correct it would be grounds to abolish women's rooms altogether and go all unisex, not grounds to open them up to trans people.

It is not racist not is it terf to want everybody to feel and to be safe using the restrooms and dressing rooms they feel most comfortable using.

Nobody said it is.

Doors on stalls, which, btw, I’ve seen on every all gender/family restroom I’ve ever been in as well as women’s/girls bathrooms should remove most of the anxiety and discomfort for all.

If that solves the problem for you, that's great, but there are other women who find that to be completely inadequate -- men in the next stall or at the sinks also make them anxious and uncomfortable. (My opinion counts for nothing here; I'm just passing female input along.)

I understand that men find some sort of….comradery in standing next to each other in a public restroom. Cool.

So I've heard. Never really got that experience out of it.

Women share the same as we fix our hair or make up or ask for a tampon. But private stalls even between very good friends is the norm for women.

Men can just get their thrills elsewhere.

Right you are.

 

[Toni]

I still don't know how a "penis" in a restroom has any bearing on restroom use. I get it. It scares you to see a penis in a typically all female location. But how is this different than the days of segregation, claiming it scared white people to see black people in 'typically all white' locations? You can claim, skin color is not voluntary and I will claim that neither is gender. It is not the transgendered woman's fault they may have a "penis" and should not be lumped in with flashers or rapists in any way.

So you're punishing a transgendered woman for the "potential" actions of a man? No, that's simply not right as a man can walk into a 'woman' only space NOW - allowing a TG woman comfort/privacy in a RR does not change or increase that. Denying ones rights because "you're afraid" is not a legitimate reason and is the exact same 'reason' given to continue segration.

So what exactly are you arguing for here? Do you mean that for the sake of their comfort/privacy we should let biological males use typically all female locations if they identify as female, the same way we now allow black people to use typically all white locations if they identify as white?

This is a disgusting analogy.

What analogy are you calling disgusting? Do you mean the one Playball and Loren keep pushing, the one where they argue women-only restrooms are analogous to whites-only restrooms? Or do you mean my counterargument against their analogy was itself a disgusting analogy? My point was that the PB/LP segregation argument is internally incoherent -- if their analogy were correct it would be grounds to abolish women's rooms altogether and go all unisex, not grounds to open them up to trans people.

It is not racist not is it terf to want everybody to feel and to be safe using the restrooms and dressing rooms they feel most comfortable using.

Nobody said it is.

Doors on stalls, which, btw, I’ve seen on every all gender/family restroom I’ve ever been in as well as women’s/girls bathrooms should remove most of the anxiety and discomfort for all.

If that solves the problem for you, that's great, but there are other women who find that to be completely inadequate -- men in the next stall or at the sinks also make them anxious and uncomfortable. (My opinion counts for nothing here; I'm just passing female input along.)

I understand that men find some sort of….comradery in standing next to each other in a public restroom. Cool.

So I've heard. Never really got that experience out of it.

Women share the same as we fix our hair or make up or ask for a tampon. But private stalls even between very good friends is the norm for women.

Men can just get their thrills elsewhere.

Right you are.

There are multiple posters here who think anything other than open access for anyone trans is bigotry.

A different albeit imperfect analogy would be to expect black people to accept any white person who claims to have some African ancestry as black and welcome to talk about how oppression of black people in the US hurts them personally, and that in the spirit of u it’s, white people’s opinions of black culture and black history, with a heavy dose of both sides.

Yeah, that’s offensive. It was meant to be.

I’m beyond sick of males telling me what women must accept. Especially when it gets them off the hook for examining and addressing male violence.

You don’t like (some) women being uncomfortable with visibly male naked bodies in female only space: Quit raping women, children and other men. Quit beating up women, children and other men. Especially those that do not confirm to the male definition of what is sufficiently masculine or macho or whatever stupid standard you think you have.

And by males, I mean those with an XY combination of chromosomes.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You are mixing up separate categories.

Flashers are about shocking their victims. It's not a prelude to rape.

While it would be possible for a rapist to enter already naked it would only be as part of an attack. They're not going to stand around and put you on your guard. Thus a penis not moving towards you is almost certainly not intending to rape you.

Indeed, flashers do sometimes escalate to actual assault.

Regardless of what men like to think, penises do not think or move of their own volition. Yes, I’m aware that erections/loss of erections is somewhat involuntary but penises do not advance on victims without the cooperation of the brain, body, limbs of the possessor.

Regardless of how you feel, or what you believe, some people do indeed expose their erections in an attempt to cause emotional distress in victims.

Yes, it happens. And they should be punished for doing so.

But we are not talking about erections moving towards women. We are talking about simple nudity.

And flashers only can harm because of the conditioning that nudity is bad.

You are not female. You are not, as far as I know, a victim of sexual abuse by anyone, male or female. You seem to have a very difficult time imagining how someone else might feel. Just because an experience or feeling is foreign to you, it does not mean those experiences and feelings do not exist, even if you do not share or understand them.

I personally do not understand how anybody can care a lick about football or whiskey but I respect that they do.

The problem here is that you are equating all sex crimes as the same thing.

You are presenting something minor as if it was major.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, Loren, she is NOT mixing up categories. Flashers very frequently escalate to sexual assault and attempted rape. So do voyeurs. Minor sex crimes very commonly are entry behaviors for people who go further and further. It's not like this is a newfangled theory - it's well documented and well known.

It's up there with the torture and killing of animals being a precursor for psychopathic behavior.

"entry behaviors for people who go further and further".

So this is Minority Report?