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

[Toni]

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.

No Loren. The problem is that you completely lack anything resembling empathy for what survivors of sexual assault suffer. Or, for that matter, for women who belong to religions or faith groups that mandate a lot more modesty than you would have. Such women would effectively be barred from enjoying a local Y or gym.

You've given absolutely zero actual reason for not wanting doors on stalls. They are not 'too expensive.' They are standard in women's restrooms and frankly, in men's restrooms that I've seen (limited number, I admit). It is really not that big a deal to provide private dressing room stalls or private shower stalls. I get it that it's not something you feel is necessary but you are not the person who may have been sexually assaulted and who now must be hyper vigilant about how they react if they see a naked penis in the shower next to them at the women's gym.

You claim to be concerned about trans women but you absolutely refuse to see how providing private changing areas could help them feel confident as well, so that they are not exposing their pre-surgical bodies for conjecture, are not having other women recoil or worse at the sight of their bodies

You certainly are NOT addressing the core issue, which is not bigotry but the FACT that men tend to be much more violent than women and that MEN tend to victimize women, children, LGBTQIA persons, other straight cis men, and the occasional farm animal. MEN tend to be violent, to physically and sexually assault others, to verbally assault others, to commit all sorts of homicide at rates far greater than do women.

MEN need to start addressing their own issues and leave women alone.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Illusionary safety is better than actually looking at imperfect reality.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

If they were actively intruding on someone's space, yes. But that is not alleged here.

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.

So norms are automatically correct?

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.

Check the crime rate by race.

(Yes, it's actually socioeconomic. But if penis is an acceptable proxy for sex criminal then black should be an acceptable proxy for mugger.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

I suspect the ID + wardrobe is enough to weed out fakes. It's an awful lot of work for a crime they won't get away with for long.

Real world, you don't go overboard on preventing a particular crime. That actually ends up lowering safety because you have limited resources for preventing crime, putting too much into one crime means putting too little into others.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Calling it disgusting doesn't make it disappear.

And saying it's not "racist" is a dodge, as nobody's claiming it is. Rather, it's an example of discrimination.

 

[Toni]

You certainly are NOT addressing the core issue, which is not bigotry but the FACT that men tend to be much more violent than women and that MEN tend to victimize women, children, LGBTQIA persons, other straight cis men, and the occasional farm animal. MEN tend to be violent, to physically and sexually assault others, to verbally assault others, to commit all sorts of homicide at rates far greater than do women.

MEN need to start addressing their own issues and leave women alone.

Yeah, there are plenty of problems in society.

The issue here is that this is part of the Republican effort to force us back to 1950 or so.

This isn't about bathrooms, it's about making it impossible to exist as a trans person. Bathrooms are simply a battleground, not the war.

Ffs, Loren. Men being violent has been the case for thousands of years. Trump did t cause it and you blaming Trump will not make life easier for anyone.

Addressing the problem with men and violence might.

 

[Toni]

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.

Calling it disgusting doesn't make it disappear.

And saying it's not "racist" is a dodge, as nobody's claiming it is. Rather, it's an example of discrimination.

Dodging the disgusting part doesn’t make it less disgusting.

Or more apt.

 

[Toni]

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?

If they were actively intruding on someone's space, yes. But that is not alleged here.

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.

So norms are automatically correct?

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.

Check the crime rate by race.

(Yes, it's actually socioeconomic. But if penis is an acceptable proxy for sex criminal then black should be an acceptable proxy for mugger.)

There are so many levels of racism and denial and absolute lack of anything remotely approaching reason or thought that for the thousandth time, I really really really wish I could put you on ignore.

 

[Bomb#20]

This is a disgusting analogy.

Calling it disgusting doesn't make it disappear.

Dude, you know what else doesn't make it disappear? Pointing out how illogical it is. The reasons women's restrooms aren't equivalent to whites-only restrooms have already been posted six ways to Sunday, but the people making the analogy can never be bothered to address those reasons -- instead they just keep on repeating their stupid canard. Pointing out how illogical the analogy is doesn't make it disappear, but it should.

 

[Toni]

You certainly are NOT addressing the core issue, which is not bigotry but the FACT that men tend to be much more violent than women and that MEN tend to victimize women, children, LGBTQIA persons, other straight cis men, and the occasional farm animal. MEN tend to be violent, to physically and sexually assault others, to verbally assault others, to commit all sorts of homicide at rates far greater than do women.

MEN need to start addressing their own issues and leave women alone.

Yeah, there are plenty of problems in society.

The issue here is that this is part of the Republican effort to force us back to 1950 or so.

This isn't about bathrooms, it's about making it impossible to exist as a trans person. Bathrooms are simply a battleground, not the war.

I’m not certain why you are posting this as a reply to me.

I’m not saying that trans women do not belong in women’s bathrooms.

I’ve said the opposite.

You’ve repeatedly said that it is too expensive to put doors on stalls in locker rooms even though that is the norm in women’s bathrooms already.

You are the one who cares more about a few dollars than helping all women feel safe.

You have zero interest in addressing the fact that the violence is virtually all from men. You, in fact, are trying to keep pushing the narrative that black people are more violent —and simultaneously accusing anyone who points out legitimate issues about accommodating trans women in women’s locker rooms —issues that would be resolved with doors on stalls—as being comparable to racism.

I guess you should know about racism. You spout enough of it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

Calling it disgusting doesn't make it disappear.

Nor does repeating it magically make it a viable analogy. Gender related segregation of locker rooms and bathrooms is not about excluding access to facilities (or quality of facilities).

So please, I wish this ridiculous ploy to try and analogize women in their own spaces with racial bigotry would be dropped. It is as desperate as it is ridiculous.

Even nudists have segregated bathrooms. Are we going to call them prudes?

 

[Jarhyn]

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?

If they were actively intruding on someone's space, yes. But that is not alleged here.

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.

So norms are automatically correct?

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.

Check the crime rate by race.

(Yes, it's actually socioeconomic. But if penis is an acceptable proxy for sex criminal then black should be an acceptable proxy for mugger.)

There are so many levels of racism and denial and absolute lack of anything remotely approaching reason or thought that for the thousandth time, I really really really wish I could put you on ignore.

I think that in the moment, you two are arguing past one another.

I don't really think that Loren thinks that anyone should be allowed to whip their genitals out all willy-nilly at one another.

I do think Loren is daft as a shithouse rat if he thinks that someone exposing their genitals in a public space is acceptable*. Then, no trans people at large actually accept or support the people who do that. Then, the rule of large numbers among the fact of humanity's lackluster potential fairly well demands at least one representative of the worst humanity has to offer.

The fact is, Emily is arguing a less obvious re-packaging of a KKK anti-trans flier.

I think everyone who isn't low-key arguing from a KKK flier is going to at least agree that:

People who have gone through the steps that we have discussed, at least to HRT and a changed ID marker, have every right to be in a space.

Nobody in that space has the right to expose their genitals to others there*.

This IS a result of bad cultural programming, but guess what Loren: it's here for now.

And so are bathrooms unless it's used as a basis for an economic stimulus.

It's not too expensive, but people won't pay for it. Hell, a lot of people would take the money and do nothing and we damn well know that when enforcement of the law against the pocketing of the money will have every non-compliant landlord who couldn't be arsed up in arms about "the woke mafia" and how dare they, and "how burdensome and disruptive this is on the schools".

In fact, if we manage to get that far, I guarantee you that's the complaint we will hear on that day. Set your watch. Save the quote. It'll age like fine wine, perhaps for centuries until the day when it's actually accomplished that some leverage demands a sane bathroom re-fit for privacy sake.

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.

Calling it disgusting doesn't make it disappear.

Nor does repeating it magically make it a viable analogy. Gender related segregation of locker rooms and bathrooms is not about excluding access to facilities (or quality of facilities).

So please, I wish this ridiculous ploy to try and analogize women in their own spaces with racial bigotry would be dropped. It is as desperate as it is ridiculous.

Even nudists have segregated bathrooms. Are we going to call them prudes?

Except... It really is a bigotry based on appearance we are talking about here, rather than one about behavior.

If the reaction would be to attempt to kick my niece out of a bathroom (remember, my niece has a beard), the reaction is wrong.

Spoiler: *

*unless the shower stall they happen to be in has transparent walls and door, possibly with a slot for dollar bills.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Calling it disgusting doesn't make it disappear.

And saying it's not "racist" is a dodge, as nobody's claiming it is. Rather, it's an example of discrimination.

It is a moronic analogy because blacks people don’t identify as whites. Of course, it’s discrimination. We discriminate as people and as a society all the time.

The issue is whether such a differentiation makes sense. Women as a group have legitimate reasons based on reality to have serious justifiable concerns about transwomen using women only places.

Dismissing those concerns as nonexistent or extremely trivial exhibits a level of cluelessness that astounds me. The issue of transposeurs is a real one - men using trans as a get out if trouble card. Until our society agrees on a solution, it represents a real obstacle.

Stalls are a simple compromise for the privacy issue. Yes, it slightly increases costs .

 

[Toni]

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?

If they were actively intruding on someone's space, yes. But that is not alleged here.

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.

So norms are automatically correct?

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.

Check the crime rate by race.

(Yes, it's actually socioeconomic. But if penis is an acceptable proxy for sex criminal then black should be an acceptable proxy for mugger.)

There are so many levels of racism and denial and absolute lack of anything remotely approaching reason or thought that for the thousandth time, I really really really wish I could put you on ignore.

I think that in the moment, you two are arguing past one another.

I don't really think that Loren thinks that anyone should be allowed to whip their genitals out all willy-nilly at one another.

I do think Loren is daft as a shithouse rat if he thinks that someone exposing their genitals in a public space is acceptable*. Then, no trans people at large actually accept or support the people who do that. Then, the rule of large numbers among the fact of humanity's lackluster potential fairly well demands at least one representative of the worst humanity has to offer.

The fact is, Emily is arguing a less obvious re-packaging of a KKK anti-trans flier.

I think everyone who isn't low-key arguing from a KKK flier is going to at least agree that:

People who have gone through the steps that we have discussed, at least to HRT and a changed ID marker, have every right to be in a space.

Nobody in that space has the right to expose their genitals to others there*.

This IS a result of bad cultural programming, but guess what Loren: it's here for now.

And so are bathrooms unless it's used as a basis for an economic stimulus.

It's not too expensive, but people won't pay for it. Hell, a lot of people would take the money and do nothing and we damn well know that when enforcement of the law against the pocketing of the money will have every non-compliant landlord who couldn't be arsed up in arms about "the woke mafia" and how dare they, and "how burdensome and disruptive this is on the schools".

In fact, if we manage to get that far, I guarantee you that's the complaint we will hear on that day. Set your watch. Save the quote. It'll age like fine wine, perhaps for centuries until the day when it's actually accomplished that some leverage demands a sane bathroom re-fit for privacy sake.

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.

Calling it disgusting doesn't make it disappear.

Nor does repeating it magically make it a viable analogy. Gender related segregation of locker rooms and bathrooms is not about excluding access to facilities (or quality of facilities).

So please, I wish this ridiculous ploy to try and analogize women in their own spaces with racial bigotry would be dropped. It is as desperate as it is ridiculous.

Even nudists have segregated bathrooms. Are we going to call them prudes?

Except... It really is a bigotry based on appearance we are talking about here, rather than one about behavior.

If the reaction would be to attempt to kick my niece out of a bathroom (remember, my niece has a beard), the reaction is wrong.

Spoiler: *

*unless the shower stall they happen to be in has transparent walls and door, possibly with a slot for dollar bills.

FFS, men have no authority to tell women anything about women’s bathrooms or locker rooms. It’s definitely a none of your fucking business issue. It’s not. Men do a piss poor job of ‘protecting’ women from men so we must protect ourselves—from men.

No, it’s not a case of bad social programming with reference to women. I don’t think there is a damn thing wrong with modesty or desiring privacy. People have different levels of how comfortable they are with respect to their own personal space, bodies, etc. People are allowed to be shy or bold. Much of that is hardwired into us anyway, whether we are introverted or extroverted. Trying to force someone to be extroverted or more sociable than they are is as wrong as it is to try to force someone who is left handed to only use their right hand. No one has the right to see another person’s body or any part of their body that person does not wish to be seen.

MEN are the ones who cause the issue re: women’s ( trans, cis) by being violent and sexually violent towards women ( and others). I don’t see any of the men who are goddam self righteous even considering that MEN are the problem but you are.

I see a bunch of MEN telling women what WOMEN must accept that men certainly do NOT accept and in fact resort to violence against LGBTQIA+ individuals because it scares them so much they just have to beat the shit out of, rape and murder anyone who offends their delicate little feefees.

Mind your own damn business. Quit assaulting people, especially people who scare you because they don’t conform to your precious little bigoted ideals of masculinity. And quit being too chickenshit to call each other out when you see men and boys behaving badly towards other people. You all can shut that shit down. So just do that instead of trying to FORCE women to do any goddam thing, particularly something y’all aren’t interested in doing yourselves

#NotAllMen. Of course.

Certainly, as I’ve said forever: doors.

It’s an imperfect solution, sure. Bad things can and do happen behind doors. Bad things can happen anywhere.

Society establishes norms as a protective measure, so that if we observe something outside of the norm, we exhibit caution, we question. It may be silently, to ourselves but we evaluate situations every second of every day. We make decisions all the time about what is and what is not safe. And who.

Unfortunately looks are what we have to go on. It may not be fair but without other obvious markers indicating otherwise, a bearded person is going to be perceived as male. Just as a person with enlarged breasts will be perceived as female.

This is a very imperfect analogy but: It’s not really different than when my then teenaged son grew hair down to his shoulders, he was offered drugs pretty often. That, btw, was my only concern re: his hair and we had exactly one conversation about that. I did’t think he’d be tempted into substance abuse but I knew some people—kids and adults—would perceive him as being a trouble maker or into drugs or at least pot. Regardless, he could well attract some shit —and possibly attacks because of his hair. I wanted him to be aware/forewarned about that possibility. I trusted him to be a good person. There was also a good chance my dad might give him shit about his hair but my dad and I had already gone a few rounds on other but not entirely dissimilar issues and he wanted to keep seeing his grandkids—so, Dad kept his mouth shut. And they kept a good relationship. So I am aware that appearances can be deceiving.

Yes, he was offered drugs much more frequently than his brothers with shorter hair and yes, some people ( teachers, school administrators) perceived him as a likely troublemaker and/ or drug user. No, no violence was directed towards him, thankfully. He did take up guitar, though. And somewhere in his twenties decided to go with shorter hair.

This is another very poor analogy—and a loaded one and I apologize for it but perhaps some of the men might get it:

Expecting people to not perceive someone who, to a casual observer appears male as actually male is a little like expecting members of the general public —or police-to know if someone waving a gun around has a real gun and not a toy and if it’s loaded. Without some obvious way to know the difference, people might think the gun is real and loaded and that the individual had ill intentions.

Lots of us live in open carry states. I definitely avoid people I see carrying. I don’t trust their judgement and I’m a bit suspicious of their intentions. Fair or not. I’ll bet some of you feel the same.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

Calling it disgusting doesn't make it disappear.

And saying it's not "racist" is a dodge, as nobody's claiming it is. Rather, it's an example of discrimination.

It is a moronic analogy because blacks people don’t identify as whites. Of course, it’s discrimination. We discriminate as people and as a society all the time.

The issue is whether such a differentiation makes sense. Women as a group have legitimate reasons based on reality to have serious justifiable concerns about transwomen using women only places.

Dismissing those concerns as nonexistent or extremely trivial exhibits a level of cluelessness that astounds me. The issue of transposeurs is a real one - men using trans as a get out if trouble card. Until our society agrees on a solution, it represents a real obstacle.

Stalls are a simple compromise for the privacy issue. Yes, it slightly increases costs .

I will reiterate: any standard that would see my niece harassed for using the bathroom needs to be questioned.

I think, while a rather personal standard, it is a perfectly valid one.

My niece has a beard.

I am sorry, but I will not accept any reaction that would abuse my niece for going into a restroom, every, for any reason. I do not "forgive" the interaction, if the person who reacted so does not feel apologetic for having it. I don't think my niece should. I don't think anyone should.

The real solution is to draw the line at genital nudity in one of the two bathrooms available.

It's not a matter of it being the perspective of someone with a penis. There are a limited number of solutions possible, given the absolute requirement I will set that my niece not be harassed. This is the only solution that presents itself for the purpose.

There are also material issues with this because there are some locations I am aware of just in my own city where there are bathrooms intended for public exposure. This exists above and beyond bathrooms nominally tolerant to public exposure, through the existence of urinal infrastructure.

This is also not really a question. The Saloon's dance floor? There's a plexiglass shower on a stage. This is one of their 'bathrooms'.

And then let's not forget about the bathroom stall without a door at all down at Ground Zero so that people can shit for semi-private viewing?

With regards to public restrooms, I think there needs to be some standard, and I'm not against there being two standards, but I would divide them on the genderless line of whether genital nudity is "nominally tolerated".

As Toni said, in fact while working on this post, people have different standards of what they will accept.

But my standard? You have to be willing to accept a person with a beard wearing any sort of clothing you might demand to be allowed to wear wanting to use the special space with standards against exposure and criminal penalties -- sex offender status --and possible (probable?) civil actions on breach of etiquette.

I would have a space where my niece will not be harassed for using a restroom. I would call such restrooms "safe space" restrooms?

Outside of spaces labeled and offered at that standard, for that purpose, it must absolutely be up to the establishment whether to nominally tolerate nudity, or whether to just openly tolerate it, and to allow for spaces for those who would nominally tolerate it.

The bowing to the KKK flier is asking, in some respects, government to regulate private spaces in a way that will specifically harm folks that the GOP want to harm for no good reason.

So as a result, my requirement is specifically for, when offered, the clear marking of all bathrooms that do not even nominally tolerate genital exposure -- "safe spaces" -- have posted neutral etiquette, and which should be marked as existing for this purpose where available, and by the public to the existing extent of current women's facilities.

Where a business does not wish to provide such furnishings, that's their prerogative.

With regards to cost, it is a problem. The problem should be addressed. I think it has solutions. The solution is stimulus or tax subsidy, I think. This serves to be discussed. Not discussing the problem is as bad as discussing the problem but not even attempting to solve it.

Saying this is "the perspective of men" is itself sexist. It is like people have not even tried to think about the problem agnostic to their own gender and to seek solutions in those terms?

I won't accept an outcome where people can harass my niece without consequence for using the bathroom. That's not an issue of my gender, it's an issue of exactly what I see needs to happen so as to prevent that, at this point.

In the interim, and where people just won't accept that answer, I damn well think that having an ID marker should suffice. I accept this only because if you are checking an ID marker, clearly nobody has whipped anything out of their pants, and the context is not one that could even possibly evolve to rape if it's gone to petty bickering about "look at my ID you crazy jerk and get out of my face".

It's not even about the discussion of "a penis". If there is "a penis" things have already gone too far, from my perspective. To me this is about people freaking out because someone has a beard, because someone is tall or broad of shoulders, because someone has a chin and a broad jawline, or some other stupid bullshit. It's about violently or indirectly-violently attacking someone based on their perceived features rather than their actual behavior, and for features on display among my own family (and Loren's).

 

[Toni]

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.

Calling it disgusting doesn't make it disappear.

And saying it's not "racist" is a dodge, as nobody's claiming it is. Rather, it's an example of discrimination.

It is a moronic analogy because blacks people don’t identify as whites. Of course, it’s discrimination. We discriminate as people and as a society all the time.

The issue is whether such a differentiation makes sense. Women as a group have legitimate reasons based on reality to have serious justifiable concerns about transwomen using women only places.

Dismissing those concerns as nonexistent or extremely trivial exhibits a level of cluelessness that astounds me. The issue of transposeurs is a real one - men using trans as a get out if trouble card. Until our society agrees on a solution, it represents a real obstacle.

Stalls are a simple compromise for the privacy issue. Yes, it slightly increases costs .

I will reiterate: any standard that would see my niece harassed for using the bathroom needs to be questioned.

I think, while a rather personal standard, it is a perfectly valid one.

My niece has a beard.

I am sorry, but I will not accept any reaction that would abuse my niece for going into a restroom, every, for any reason. I do not "forgive" the interaction, if the person who reacted so does not feel apologetic for having it. I don't think my niece should. I don't think anyone should.

The real solution is to draw the line at genital nudity in one of the two bathrooms available.

It's not a matter of it being the perspective of someone with a penis. There are a limited number of solutions possible, given the absolute requirement I will set that my niece not be harassed. This is the only solution that presents itself for the purpose.

There are also material issues with this because there are some locations I am aware of just in my own city where there are bathrooms intended for public exposure. This exists above and beyond bathrooms nominally tolerant to public exposure, through the existence of urinal infrastructure.

This is also not really a question. The Saloon's dance floor? There's a plexiglass shower on a stage. This is one of their 'bathrooms'.

And then let's not forget about the bathroom stall without a door at all down at Ground Zero so that people can shit for semi-private viewing?

With regards to public restrooms, I think there needs to be some standard, and I'm not against there being two standards, but I would divide them on the genderless line of whether genital nudity is "nominally tolerated".

As Toni said, in fact while working on this post, people have different standards of what they will accept.

But my standard? You have to be willing to accept a person with a beard wearing any sort of clothing you might demand to be allowed to wear wanting to use the special space with standards against exposure and criminal penalties -- sex offender status --and possible (probable?) civil actions on breach of etiquette.

I would have a space where my niece will not be harassed for using a restroom. I would call such restrooms "safe space" restrooms?

Outside of spaces labeled and offered at that standard, for that purpose, it must absolutely be up to the establishment whether to nominally tolerate nudity, or whether to just openly tolerate it, and to allow for spaces for those who would nominally tolerate it.

The bowing to the KKK flier is asking, in some respects, government to regulate private spaces in a way that will specifically harm folks that the GOP want to harm for no good reason.

So as a result, my requirement is specifically for, when offered, the clear marking of all bathrooms that do not even nominally tolerate genital exposure -- "safe spaces" -- have posted neutral etiquette, and which should be marked as existing for this purpose where available, and by the public to the existing extent of current women's facilities.

Where a business does not wish to provide such furnishings, that's their prerogative.

With regards to cost, it is a problem. The problem should be addressed. I think it has solutions. The solution is stimulus or tax subsidy, I think. This serves to be discussed. Not discussing the problem is as bad as discussing the problem but not even attempting to solve it.

Saying this is "the perspective of men" is itself sexist. It is like people have not even tried to think about the problem agnostic to their own gender and to seek solutions in those terms?

I won't accept an outcome where people can harass my niece without consequence for using the bathroom. That's not an issue of my gender, it's an issue of exactly what I see needs to happen so as to prevent that, at this point.

In the interim, and where people just won't accept that answer, I damn well think that having an ID marker should suffice. I accept this only because if you are checking an ID marker, clearly nobody has whipped anything out of their pants, and the context is not one that could even possibly evolve to rape if it's gone to petty bickering about "look at my ID you crazy jerk and get out of my face".

It's not even about the discussion of "a penis". If there is "a penis" things have already gone too far, from my perspective. To me this is about people freaking out because someone has a beard, because someone is tall or broad of shoulders, because someone has a chin and a broad jawline, or some other stupid bullshit. It's about violently or indirectly-violently attacking someone based on their perceived features rather than their actual behavior, and for features on display among my own family (and Loren's).

I don’t think your niece should be harassed for having facial hair. I didn’t think my son should be harassed for having very long hair, but to a certain extent, he had to deal with some stuff that he would not have had to deal with had he worn a more typically masculine hairstyle or had he been very ripped—but even if he had been heavily muscled, he would have faced some shit. It’s not fair, it’s wrong and it’s dangerous. It is likely far more dangerous for your niece than it was for my son. I am in no way suggesting the two situations are the same. But both are /were making some grooming choices that might attract negative reactions, primarily from males. In that way, they are similar. AFAIK, when my son cut his hair, he did it because he was tired of the extra work in having hair nearly to your waist. At that point he was no longer in high school or college. Maybe he also thought it would help him find work.

It makes me incredibly angry that anyone has to worry about being attacked for silly existing, or for not conforming to current societal expectations based on perceived gender or sex. Or being the wrong color or having a disability or an accent, etc.

Such is the world we live in. Women are not going to simply accept whatever men tell them they must. We’re not.

In the public places I visit, there are restrooms that are either completely non-gendered or there are restrooms that are labeled with a male figure or a female figure or are marked ‘family’ or all genders. It seems that you are familiar with different situations than I am, but for my part if the world, it seems to work well enough. I haven’t heard any screams or shouting or even mild tsks.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You certainly are NOT addressing the core issue, which is not bigotry but the FACT that men tend to be much more violent than women and that MEN tend to victimize women, children, LGBTQIA persons, other straight cis men, and the occasional farm animal. MEN tend to be violent, to physically and sexually assault others, to verbally assault others, to commit all sorts of homicide at rates far greater than do women.

MEN need to start addressing their own issues and leave women alone.

Yeah, there are plenty of problems in society.

The issue here is that this is part of the Republican effort to force us back to 1950 or so.

This isn't about bathrooms, it's about making it impossible to exist as a trans person. Bathrooms are simply a battleground, not the war.

Ffs, Loren. Men being violent has been the case for thousands of years. Trump did t cause it and you blaming Trump will not make life easier for anyone.

Addressing the problem with men and violence might.

The problem here is that it's a false flag.

Present (or manufacture) problem. Present "solution". Hide the fact that the "solution" does nothing about the real problem. Standard formula to trick good people into doing evil things.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Calling it disgusting doesn't make it disappear.

And saying it's not "racist" is a dodge, as nobody's claiming it is. Rather, it's an example of discrimination.

Dodging the disgusting part doesn’t make it less disgusting.

Or more apt.

Of course it's disgusting, quit repeating that. You're using that to shut down discussion of the actual issue.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Calling it disgusting doesn't make it disappear.

And saying it's not "racist" is a dodge, as nobody's claiming it is. Rather, it's an example of discrimination.

Dodging the disgusting part doesn’t make it less disgusting.

Or more apt.

Of course it's disgusting, quit repeating that. You're using that to shut down discussion of the actual issue.

Then discuss the actual issue instead of injecting idiotic and disgusting analogies.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This is a disgusting analogy.

Calling it disgusting doesn't make it disappear.

Dude, you know what else doesn't make it disappear? Pointing out how illogical it is. The reasons women's restrooms aren't equivalent to whites-only restrooms have already been posted six ways to Sunday, but the people making the analogy can never be bothered to address those reasons -- instead they just keep on repeating their stupid canard. Pointing out how illogical the analogy is doesn't make it disappear, but it should.

At least you're addressing the issue.

The problem with this is that trans in bathrooms isn't a new issue--it's been working fine. The supposed threat doesn't show up. Thus this looks very much like discrimination.