• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

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

To notify a split thread.
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 doesn’t bother to read other people’s posts. He’s like those people who only ‘listen’ for a pause when you’re talking so that he can interrupt and tell you how you’re wrong.

He doesn’t care that multiple people have pointed out there really are some legitimate concerns that some women may have and that it is very much NOT like racism. He doesn’t berate them or tell them to stop. Probably because they are male. Maybe not but that’s my guess.

I mean, read his post 5577. He absolutely does not criticize Bomb#20 for supporting me. And I want to point out: Bomb and I almost always vehemently disagree with each other.
 
But both are /were making some grooming choices that might attract negative reactions, primarily from males
I am not talking about attention from "males".

I am talking about her being challenged or made to feel uncomfortable in the bathroom where she normally does her business by people who do not accept she belongs there.

This is why I want to force the issue on being gender neutral and purpose/etiquette-based.

This, and the fact that we MUST NOT ban genital exposure in/around certain forms of restroom.

I don't go e a shit what you "want" to accept or what you "believe". I am laying out the simple mathematical logic of it: if my niece would be attacked or harassed for entering the bathroom (by TERFs or "Karens", most likely, or conscripted men to some act of harassment escalating to indirect violence) based on some policy of judgement, something is wrong.

This might be indistinguishable from someone entering with a (covered, in-their-pants) penis, balls, gynecomastia, and the intent to use a toilet while avoiding even possibly seeing penises because they have been raped, possibly in a bathroom.

They deserve as much either way.

Assuming they obey the standards and the facility has been updated to prevent any unwanted seeing-of-penises by all parties, there needs to be a space for both people who visually cannot be easily distinguished.

This place needs to have privacy to the extent of full walls and doors.

There need to be well understood and enforced rules of etiquette under the sign with which this is offered.

There as much serves to be an expedient offering for those who are nominally insensitive to the rare flash of genitals.

This can be done and promised without respect for gender.

These aren't "beliefs" in the sense that I just pulled them out of my ass. These are based on a set of requirements and concessions on behalf of those requirements, namely that TERFs and Karens are strictly not allowed to harass my niece for having a beard when she goes into the bathroom and threaten them with indirect violence for having the gall to grow out her beard (edit: and that people be allowed to shower behind plexiglass for the entertainment of a bunch of horny folks).
 
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.
Stall doors ‘trick’ people into doing evil things?

The real problem is that when have very good reasons of physical safety to protect their female only space.

I’m all for addressing the real problem which is male propensity for violence and in particular, violence towards women and anyone they see as vulnerable.

So why don’t you quit casting aspersions on my character and start addressing make propensity to violence. Not really a question.
 
I don't really think that Loren thinks that anyone should be allowed to whip their genitals out all willy-nilly at one another.
Correct. At one another becomes a sexual act.
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
Look at reality. There are places it's legal. And the world doesn't fall apart.
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.
And I'm setting a lower bar: ID marker + reasonable attempt at appearance. I believe that will be plenty to discourage the false ones. I would have no objection to a test of knowledge of expected behavior.
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.
Yeah, it's cultural programming. Oppressing blacks was also cultural programming.
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".
The problem is the additional space. People will not want to incur a substantial cost for the benefit of a few. We already have issues with things not being done because ADA compliance is too expensive.
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.
Exactly. And note that separate bathrooms in nudist places very well might be code.
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.

*unless the shower stall they happen to be in has transparent walls and door, possibly with a slot for dollar bills.
Which is my point. It works both ways--if it's wrong to kick your niece out, then it's likewise wrong to kick out the MTF.
 
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?
Yeah. Don't look at groups, look at total harm inflicted.
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".
ID would only become relevant if someone was challenged.
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).
They are framing this as "a penis" because they don't have anything else to go on.

And it was a changing room, not a restroom.
 
But both are /were making some grooming choices that might attract negative reactions, primarily from males
I am not talking about attention from "males".

I am talking about her being challenged or made to feel uncomfortable in the bathroom where she normally does her business by people who do not accept she belongs there.

This is why I want to force the issue on being gender neutral and purpose/etiquette-based.

This, and the fact that we MUST NOT ban genital exposure in/around certain forms of restroom.

I don't go e a shit what you "want" to accept or what you "believe". I am laying out the simple mathematical logic of it: if my niece would be attacked or harassed for entering the bathroom (by TERFs or "Karens", most likely, or conscripted men to some act of harassment escalating to indirect violence) based on some policy of judgement, something is wrong.

This might be indistinguishable from someone entering with a (covered, in-their-pants) penis, balls, gynecomastia, and the intent to use a toilet while avoiding even possibly seeing penises because they have been raped, possibly in a bathroom.

They deserve as much either way.

Assuming they obey the standards and the facility has been updated to prevent any unwanted seeing-of-penises by all parties, there needs to be a space for both people who visually cannot be easily distinguished.

This place needs to have privacy to the extent of full walls and doors.

There need to be well understood and enforced rules of etiquette under the sign with which this is offered.

There as much serves to be an expedient offering for those who are nominally insensitive to the rare flash of genitals.

This can be done and promised without respect for gender.

These aren't "beliefs" in the sense that I just pulled them out of my ass. These are based on a set of requirements and concessions on behalf of those requirements, namely that TERFs and Karens are strictly not allowed to harass my niece for having a beard when she goes into the bathroom and threaten them with indirect violence for having the gall to grow out her beard (edit: and that people be allowed to shower behind plexiglass for the entertainment of a bunch of horny folks).
That holds for gender neutral spaces.

It is the norm for women only spaces to accommodate women only. I’m not suggesting that your niece is not a woman but I am stating that many women would not immediately recognize your niece as female because she has a beard, which is typical of make persons but not typical of female persons.

I have no idea what your niece looks like or how she dresses. Assuming that other than the beard, she presents as female, then you have a point—she should be accepted on her say so.
She dresses however the fuck she wants. Maybe she dresses in short hair and jeans and a tshirt. It doesn't matter how she dresses. It should not be allowed.

But if she presents as male in physical bearing, dress, facial hair and other grooming choices and in wardrobe , it is not reasonable for her to expect to never be challenged. It’s gonna happen.
And when it happens, I want the person to challenge her to apologize, not because she assaulted a "woman" socially with a threat of indirect violence, but because she attacked a "person who had not exposed their genitals nor broken etiquette".

understand you love and are concerned for your niece. I certainly do not wish her harmed or even to for her feelings hurt. But women cannot read minds.
No, they cannot. They can, however, accept that they are not alone in their requirements nor commitment to etiquette, and that it is these requirements and etiquette they should learn to expect, not a universal absence of anything that PTSDs them.

Whether men like it or not, women must screen for danger, primarily from male persons. It’s dangerous not to.
Everyone has to screen for danger. One of if not the most serious dangers I have been in outside of the military was perpetrated by someone I can only assume identifies as a "woman", in telling multiple people they should physically assault me.

I believe they only did not because I am nearly 6 feet tall and carry a staff a hand short of my height and assaulting someone so-equipped is not generally going to go well.

I always screen for danger, but from people of either gender. The danger is not always shaped the same, but there is as much danger from either source.

I would just as soon see the people who harass my niece ejected from the save space for violating the etiquette of such safe spaces.

From this perspective, perhaps we should define "woman" specifically as "someone who, in the context, does not readily consent to even brief genital nudity or exposure in a public restroom, and who expects a code of etiquette to be held to in such settings", and "man" could be defined in similar terms of permissiveness to some brief and minimal amount of genital nudity.

Under those definitions, we wouldn't even need to change the signs. We would just need to extend the hardware for privacy.
 
ID would only become relevant if someone was challenged.
Which would be valid if genitals were exposed regardless of the marker, and invalid if genitals were not exposed, unless the exposure was coerced.
 
But both are /were making some grooming choices that might attract negative reactions, primarily from males
I am not talking about attention from "males".

I am talking about her being challenged or made to feel uncomfortable in the bathroom where she normally does her business by people who do not accept she belongs there.

This is why I want to force the issue on being gender neutral and purpose/etiquette-based.

This, and the fact that we MUST NOT ban genital exposure in/around certain forms of restroom.

I don't go e a shit what you "want" to accept or what you "believe". I am laying out the simple mathematical logic of it: if my niece would be attacked or harassed for entering the bathroom (by TERFs or "Karens", most likely, or conscripted men to some act of harassment escalating to indirect violence) based on some policy of judgement, something is wrong.

This might be indistinguishable from someone entering with a (covered, in-their-pants) penis, balls, gynecomastia, and the intent to use a toilet while avoiding even possibly seeing penises because they have been raped, possibly in a bathroom.

They deserve as much either way.

Assuming they obey the standards and the facility has been updated to prevent any unwanted seeing-of-penises by all parties, there needs to be a space for both people who visually cannot be easily distinguished.

This place needs to have privacy to the extent of full walls and doors.

There need to be well understood and enforced rules of etiquette under the sign with which this is offered.

There as much serves to be an expedient offering for those who are nominally insensitive to the rare flash of genitals.

This can be done and promised without respect for gender.

These aren't "beliefs" in the sense that I just pulled them out of my ass. These are based on a set of requirements and concessions on behalf of those requirements, namely that TERFs and Karens are strictly not allowed to harass my niece for having a beard when she goes into the bathroom and threaten them with indirect violence for having the gall to grow out her beard (edit: and that people be allowed to shower behind plexiglass for the entertainment of a bunch of horny folks).
That holds for gender neutral spaces.

It is the norm for women only spaces to accommodate women only. I’m not suggesting that your niece is not a woman but I am stating that many women would not immediately recognize your niece as female because she has a beard, which is typical of make persons but not typical of female persons.

I have no idea what your niece looks like or how she dresses. Assuming that other than the beard, she presents as female, then you have a point—she should be accepted on her say so.
She dresses however the fuck she wants. Maybe she dresses in short hair and jeans and a tshirt. It doesn't matter how she dresses. It should not be allowed.

But if she presents as male in physical bearing, dress, facial hair and other grooming choices and in wardrobe , it is not reasonable for her to expect to never be challenged. It’s gonna happen.
And when it happens, I want the person to challenge her to apologize, not because she assaulted a "woman" socially with a threat of indirect violence, but because she attacked a "person who had not exposed their genitals nor broken etiquette".

understand you love and are concerned for your niece. I certainly do not wish her harmed or even to for her feelings hurt. But women cannot read minds.
No, they cannot. They can, however, accept that they are not alone in their requirements nor commitment to etiquette, and that it is these requirements and etiquette they should learn to expect, not a universal absence of anything that PTSDs them.

Whether men like it or not, women must screen for danger, primarily from male persons. It’s dangerous not to.
Everyone has to screen for danger. One of if not the most serious dangers I have been in outside of the military was perpetrated by someone I can only assume identifies as a "woman", in telling multiple people they should physically assault me.

I believe they only did not because I am nearly 6 feet tall and carry a staff a hand short of my height and assaulting someone so-equipped is not generally going to go well.

I always screen for danger, but from people of either gender. The danger is not always shaped the same, but there is as much danger from either source.

I would just as soon see the people who harass my niece ejected from the save space for violating the etiquette of such safe spaces.

From this perspective, perhaps we should define "woman" specifically as "someone who, in the context, does not readily consent to even brief genital nudity or exposure in a public restroom, and who expects a code of etiquette to be held to in such settings", and "man" could be defined in similar terms of permissiveness to some brief and minimal amount of genital nudity.

Under those definitions, we wouldn't even need to change the signs. We would just need to extend the hardware for privacy.
Ok but if your niece wears a beard and dresses in clothing typical of a male person, what would signal that she’s a woman? Honest question.

Almost anyone would assume a person with a beard wearing clothing typical of a male to be male.

She should not be surprised if she is screamed at. I don’t think it’s great abd I’m sorry it hurts her or upsets either or both of you.

But what is the indicator here???? What are other women missing?

I’m not attacking your niece. I’m just describing reality.

I’m well aware of the idea that we should just retire the word woman women are accustomed to attempts to erase us.

Fuck that noise as my son says.
 
But both are /were making some grooming choices that might attract negative reactions, primarily from males
I am not talking about attention from "males".

I am talking about her being challenged or made to feel uncomfortable in the bathroom where she normally does her business by people who do not accept she belongs there.

This is why I want to force the issue on being gender neutral and purpose/etiquette-based.

This, and the fact that we MUST NOT ban genital exposure in/around certain forms of restroom.

I don't go e a shit what you "want" to accept or what you "believe". I am laying out the simple mathematical logic of it: if my niece would be attacked or harassed for entering the bathroom (by TERFs or "Karens", most likely, or conscripted men to some act of harassment escalating to indirect violence) based on some policy of judgement, something is wrong.

This might be indistinguishable from someone entering with a (covered, in-their-pants) penis, balls, gynecomastia, and the intent to use a toilet while avoiding even possibly seeing penises because they have been raped, possibly in a bathroom.

They deserve as much either way.

Assuming they obey the standards and the facility has been updated to prevent any unwanted seeing-of-penises by all parties, there needs to be a space for both people who visually cannot be easily distinguished.

This place needs to have privacy to the extent of full walls and doors.

There need to be well understood and enforced rules of etiquette under the sign with which this is offered.

There as much serves to be an expedient offering for those who are nominally insensitive to the rare flash of genitals.

This can be done and promised without respect for gender.

These aren't "beliefs" in the sense that I just pulled them out of my ass. These are based on a set of requirements and concessions on behalf of those requirements, namely that TERFs and Karens are strictly not allowed to harass my niece for having a beard when she goes into the bathroom and threaten them with indirect violence for having the gall to grow out her beard (edit: and that people be allowed to shower behind plexiglass for the entertainment of a bunch of horny folks).
That holds for gender neutral spaces.

It is the norm for women only spaces to accommodate women only. I’m not suggesting that your niece is not a woman but I am stating that many women would not immediately recognize your niece as female because she has a beard, which is typical of make persons but not typical of female persons.

I have no idea what your niece looks like or how she dresses. Assuming that other than the beard, she presents as female, then you have a point—she should be accepted on her say so.
She dresses however the fuck she wants. Maybe she dresses in short hair and jeans and a tshirt. It doesn't matter how she dresses. It should not be allowed.

But if she presents as male in physical bearing, dress, facial hair and other grooming choices and in wardrobe , it is not reasonable for her to expect to never be challenged. It’s gonna happen.
And when it happens, I want the person to challenge her to apologize, not because she assaulted a "woman" socially with a threat of indirect violence, but because she attacked a "person who had not exposed their genitals nor broken etiquette".

understand you love and are concerned for your niece. I certainly do not wish her harmed or even to for her feelings hurt. But women cannot read minds.
No, they cannot. They can, however, accept that they are not alone in their requirements nor commitment to etiquette, and that it is these requirements and etiquette they should learn to expect, not a universal absence of anything that PTSDs them.

Whether men like it or not, women must screen for danger, primarily from male persons. It’s dangerous not to.
Everyone has to screen for danger. One of if not the most serious dangers I have been in outside of the military was perpetrated by someone I can only assume identifies as a "woman", in telling multiple people they should physically assault me.

I believe they only did not because I am nearly 6 feet tall and carry a staff a hand short of my height and assaulting someone so-equipped is not generally going to go well.

I always screen for danger, but from people of either gender. The danger is not always shaped the same, but there is as much danger from either source.

I would just as soon see the people who harass my niece ejected from the save space for violating the etiquette of such safe spaces.

From this perspective, perhaps we should define "woman" specifically as "someone who, in the context, does not readily consent to even brief genital nudity or exposure in a public restroom, and who expects a code of etiquette to be held to in such settings", and "man" could be defined in similar terms of permissiveness to some brief and minimal amount of genital nudity.

Under those definitions, we wouldn't even need to change the signs. We would just need to extend the hardware for privacy.
Ok but if your niece wears a beard and dresses in clothing typical of a male person, what would signal that she’s a woman? Honest question.
Her being in a room with expected etiquette and sticking to the etiquette of that setting signals that she belongs.

Almost anyone would assume a person with a beard wearing clothing typical of a male to be male.
And I would say this means that the expectation can be one of etiquette rather than gender.

She should not be surprised if she is screamed at. I don’t think it’s great abd I’m sorry it hurts her or upsets either or both of you.
She shouldn't be surprised, but the person who yells should not be surprised when they get ejected from the building for violating safe space etiquette.

But what is the indicator here???? What are other women missing?
Violation of etiquette.

I’m not attacking your niece. I’m just describing reality.
And I am making a demand of the people in the reality based on reality.

I’m well aware of the idea that we should just retire the word woman women are accustomed to attempts to erase us.
From legal settings? Hell yes we should erase the fucking word. Because we have a constitution that protects people on grounds of discrimination upon sex.

That's not erasing you any more than calling marriage "domestic partnership" in a legal code would erase marriage, or any more than women are erased by the NY child custody laws which no longer references gender.
 
But both are /were making some grooming choices that might attract negative reactions, primarily from males
I am not talking about attention from "males".

I am talking about her being challenged or made to feel uncomfortable in the bathroom where she normally does her business by people who do not accept she belongs there.

This is why I want to force the issue on being gender neutral and purpose/etiquette-based.

This, and the fact that we MUST NOT ban genital exposure in/around certain forms of restroom.

I don't go e a shit what you "want" to accept or what you "believe". I am laying out the simple mathematical logic of it: if my niece would be attacked or harassed for entering the bathroom (by TERFs or "Karens", most likely, or conscripted men to some act of harassment escalating to indirect violence) based on some policy of judgement, something is wrong.

This might be indistinguishable from someone entering with a (covered, in-their-pants) penis, balls, gynecomastia, and the intent to use a toilet while avoiding even possibly seeing penises because they have been raped, possibly in a bathroom.

They deserve as much either way.

Assuming they obey the standards and the facility has been updated to prevent any unwanted seeing-of-penises by all parties, there needs to be a space for both people who visually cannot be easily distinguished.

This place needs to have privacy to the extent of full walls and doors.

There need to be well understood and enforced rules of etiquette under the sign with which this is offered.

There as much serves to be an expedient offering for those who are nominally insensitive to the rare flash of genitals.

This can be done and promised without respect for gender.

These aren't "beliefs" in the sense that I just pulled them out of my ass. These are based on a set of requirements and concessions on behalf of those requirements, namely that TERFs and Karens are strictly not allowed to harass my niece for having a beard when she goes into the bathroom and threaten them with indirect violence for having the gall to grow out her beard (edit: and that people be allowed to shower behind plexiglass for the entertainment of a bunch of horny folks).
That holds for gender neutral spaces.

It is the norm for women only spaces to accommodate women only. I’m not suggesting that your niece is not a woman but I am stating that many women would not immediately recognize your niece as female because she has a beard, which is typical of make persons but not typical of female persons.

I have no idea what your niece looks like or how she dresses. Assuming that other than the beard, she presents as female, then you have a point—she should be accepted on her say so.
She dresses however the fuck she wants. Maybe she dresses in short hair and jeans and a tshirt. It doesn't matter how she dresses. It should not be allowed.

But if she presents as male in physical bearing, dress, facial hair and other grooming choices and in wardrobe , it is not reasonable for her to expect to never be challenged. It’s gonna happen.
And when it happens, I want the person to challenge her to apologize, not because she assaulted a "woman" socially with a threat of indirect violence, but because she attacked a "person who had not exposed their genitals nor broken etiquette".

understand you love and are concerned for your niece. I certainly do not wish her harmed or even to for her feelings hurt. But women cannot read minds.
No, they cannot. They can, however, accept that they are not alone in their requirements nor commitment to etiquette, and that it is these requirements and etiquette they should learn to expect, not a universal absence of anything that PTSDs them.

Whether men like it or not, women must screen for danger, primarily from male persons. It’s dangerous not to.
Everyone has to screen for danger. One of if not the most serious dangers I have been in outside of the military was perpetrated by someone I can only assume identifies as a "woman", in telling multiple people they should physically assault me.

I believe they only did not because I am nearly 6 feet tall and carry a staff a hand short of my height and assaulting someone so-equipped is not generally going to go well.

I always screen for danger, but from people of either gender. The danger is not always shaped the same, but there is as much danger from either source.

I would just as soon see the people who harass my niece ejected from the save space for violating the etiquette of such safe spaces.

From this perspective, perhaps we should define "woman" specifically as "someone who, in the context, does not readily consent to even brief genital nudity or exposure in a public restroom, and who expects a code of etiquette to be held to in such settings", and "man" could be defined in similar terms of permissiveness to some brief and minimal amount of genital nudity.

Under those definitions, we wouldn't even need to change the signs. We would just need to extend the hardware for privacy.
Ok but if your niece wears a beard and dresses in clothing typical of a male person, what would signal that she’s a woman? Honest question.
Her being in a room with expected etiquette and sticking to the etiquette of that setting signals that she belongs.

Almost anyone would assume a person with a beard wearing clothing typical of a male to be male.
And I would say this means that the expectation can be one of etiquette rather than gender.

She should not be surprised if she is screamed at. I don’t think it’s great abd I’m sorry it hurts her or upsets either or both of you.
She shouldn't be surprised, but the person who yells should not be surprised when they get ejected from the building for violating safe space etiquette.

But what is the indicator here???? What are other women missing?
Violation of etiquette.

I’m not attacking your niece. I’m just describing reality.
And I am making a demand of the people in the reality based on reality.

I’m well aware of the idea that we should just retire the word woman women are accustomed to attempts to erase us.
From legal settings? Hell yes we should erase the fucking word. Because we have a constitution that protects people on grounds of discrimination upon sex.

That's not erasing you any more than calling marriage "domestic partnership" in a legal code would erase marriage, or any more than women are erased by the NY child custody laws which no longer references gender.
Etiquette in the women’s room is
1. Being female
2. Being polite, neat, tidy and not intrusive.

Nothing matters if you don’t pass the first one unless you are there with another woman who indicates that you’re one of us.

Women must evaluate strangers quickly to assess their safety.

I’m really sorry that upsets you but a lot of women would be very upset to find some bearded person wearing a dude’s clothes in a women only space without some context. Some explanation would be required. Because sometimes males with bad intentions do come into women’s bathrooms. And that’s more common than transwomen.

Most people who are sexually assaulted are assaulted by people they know, quite often someone they assumed was safe or at least had zero reason to suspect of bad intentions. Family members or family friends, teachers, coaches, neighbors, clergy: all people we think of as safe. And who may well be absolutely not.

You know how grooming works, right? Small social violations, violations of personal space, slightly off compliments or personal remarks about your body, your ‘maturity?’ If you ignore them or hand wave them, there is often an escalation. And eventually a very bad situation.

So yes, there’s a very strong reflex to put your guard up. Because letting your guard down can be very dangerous.
 
Last edited:
I don't really think that Loren thinks that anyone should be allowed to whip their genitals out all willy-nilly at one another.
Correct. At one another becomes a sexual act.
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
Look at reality. There are places it's legal. And the world doesn't fall apart.
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.
And I'm setting a lower bar: ID marker + reasonable attempt at appearance. I believe that will be plenty to discourage the false ones. I would have no objection to a test of knowledge of expected behavior.
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.
Yeah, it's cultural programming. Oppressing blacks was also cultural programming.
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".
The problem is the additional space. People will not want to incur a substantial cost for the benefit of a few. We already have issues with things not being done because ADA compliance is too expensive.
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.
Exactly. And note that separate bathrooms in nudist places very well might be code.
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.

*unless the shower stall they happen to be in has transparent walls and door, possibly with a slot for dollar bills.
Which is my point. It works both ways--if it's wrong to kick your niece out, then it's likewise wrong to kick out the MTF.
Half the population —you know, women, is not ‘a few.’

Btw, when I write women, I mean all women.
 
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.
Did you not notice "niece"??

This is exactly the same situation, just the other way around. We have no confirmed cases of serious harm (other than to the trans) from allowing trans to use the restroom of their presentation. We have confirmed cases of serious harm from forcing trans to use the bathroom of their anatomy.
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.
Of course it's not good.

The question is what can be done to reduce the harm.
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.
The problem is in conservative areas. They're using it to out and persecute trans. Which is the whole objective! In liberal areas we have a bit of outrage.
 
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.
Did you not notice "niece"??

This is exactly the same situation, just the other way around. We have no confirmed cases of serious harm (other than to the trans) from allowing trans to use the restroom of their presentation. We have confirmed cases of serious harm from forcing trans to use the bathroom of their anatomy.
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.
Of course it's not good.

The question is what can be done to reduce the harm.
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.
The problem is in conservative areas. They're using it to out and persecute trans. Which is the whole objective! In liberal areas we have a bit of outrage.
I read and respect niece.

It’s interesting, Loren. You don’t believe cis women and girls when they report rape, and you absolutely will believe anything that a woman with an XY chromosomal compliment says and expect cis women, whom you regard as liars and beneath you in every way to just swallow whatever you or someone who is trans —or who merely claims to be trans wants us to swallow.

And yeah, I meant that exactly every way you can take it.
 
Half the population —you know, women, is not ‘a few.’

Btw, when I write women, I mean all women.
It's not about half the population, it's about the trans.
Sorry, Loren: it’s about ALL women. I know you only care about those with an X and Y chromosome but so fucking what.

Women matter, Loren. All of us. Not just the ones you identify with.
 
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--
"Trans"? "Trans" what? Transsexual or transgendered? Transsexual men in women's bathrooms isn't a new issue; transgendered men who aren't transsexuals in women's bathrooms is very much a new issue. It became an issue when activists agreed among themselves that non-ops were entitled by right to all the privileges women collectively had customarily been allowing to pre-ops and post-ops, and then convinced progressives collectively to leapfrog non-op transgendered men above women on the progressive stack, with the unintended consequence of de facto leapfrogging cis-male predators above women too.

it's been working fine.
... says a man who isn't impacted by it. What personal experience of women's rooms do you have? Women tell me it isn't working fine. Why on earth should I take your word over theirs?

The supposed threat doesn't show up.
See-no-evil, hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil is a brilliant strategy for making yourself think threats don't show up. You are applying an unfalsifiability engine to every report of harm put in front of you.

Thus this looks very much like discrimination.
"Discrimination"? Of course it's discrimination! And? It's sex discrimination. Women's rooms are an affirmative action program we males have collectively chosen to impose on ourselves as a way to partly ameliorate some of the effects of thirty million years of collectively taking advantage of our greater physical strength to lord it over females. Sex-based AA-programs in no way are equivalent to a dominant race treating another race as second-class citizens. (And as AA programs go, women's rooms are about the mildest instance imaginable. As Tom says, the men's room is right there.)

Our courts have consistently held racial discrimination to a higher level of scrutiny than sex discrimination because sex is not race and we all bloody well know it. If you really thought "It's like whites-only bathrooms" was a sound argument then you'd be agitating for abolition of women's rooms; you wouldn't be arguing that letting men use women's rooms if they think of themselves as women has "been working fine." When American culture belatedly figured out whites-only bathrooms were wrong, we didn't fix the problem by letting black people use them if they thought of themselves as white. It was unirace bathrooms for all. I don't see you arguing for unisex bathrooms for all.

The reason people make the "It's like whites-only bathrooms" argument is the same as the reason people make the "You're racist against Muslims" argument -- not because it makes any logical sense, but because it's an escalation. They know damn well that most people judge racial discrimination as worse than other forms of discrimination, so they're trying to take advantage of that judgement to gain unearned rhetorical mileage out of guilt-by-association.
 
Half the population —you know, women, is not ‘a few.’

Btw, when I write women, I mean all women.
It's not about half the population, it's about the trans.
It is actually about all of them. We can't see the rights and dignity of one group while ignoring it for another.
 
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--
"Trans"? "Trans" what? Transsexual or transgendered? Transsexual men in women's bathrooms isn't a new issue; transgendered men who aren't transsexuals in women's bathrooms is very much a new issue. It became an issue when activists agreed among themselves that non-ops were entitled by right to all the privileges women collectively had customarily been allowing to pre-ops and post-ops, and then convinced progressives collectively to leapfrog non-op transgendered men above women on the progressive stack, with the unintended consequence of de facto leapfrogging cis-male predators above women too.
You seem to be reading way too deep into 'they didn't want to hide any more.'
Thus this looks very much like discrimination.
"Discrimination"? Of course it's discrimination! And? It's sex discrimination.
It is something to watch two sides that are wrong, trying to enhance their side of the argument with labels.

It is not discrimination to allow transgenders into women's bathrooms. Discrimination is an actual word, with actual meaning. Just because something is "wrong" doesn't make it "discrimination". There is no prejudicial treatment here.
Women's rooms are an affirmative action program we males have collectively chosen to impose on ourselves as a way to partly ameliorate some of the effects of thirty million years of collectively taking advantage of our greater physical strength to lord it over females. Sex-based AA-programs in no way are equivalent to a dominant race treating another race as second-class citizens. (And as AA programs go, women's rooms are about the mildest instance imaginable. As Tom says, the men's room is right there.)
So we go from the Loren side of antiseptic moral argument that people that don't do wrong shouldn't have to be excluded to the Jarhyn side that is more laissez faire side of people should be allowed to be where they belong and we flip to the other side who are trying to wedge as much politics, jumbled up history, and denial into the argument they possibly can.

It is all very uncompelling.
Our courts have consistently held racial discrimination to a higher level of scrutiny than sex discrimination because sex is not race and we all bloody well know it.
*Looks around to see if there are any black women in the chatroom to respond to that nonsense*
The reason people make the "It's like whites-only bathrooms" argument is the same as the reason people make the "You're racist against Muslims" argument -- not because it makes any logical sense, but because it's an escalation. They know damn well that most people judge racial discrimination as worse than other forms of discrimination, so they're trying to take advantage of that judgement to gain unearned rhetorical mileage out of guilt-by-association.
They make the argument because it is emotional and they think that if they associate it with transgender access, it'll make their argument stronger. The argument would be wrong, just as all appeals to emotion fallacies are.

Or just like people who are against transgender people in women's spaces because transgender is just a choice and this is all a liberal conspiracy.

We have two sides as part of this argument that don't give a rat's ass or even acknowledge the existence of the other side. And neither of them are right.
 
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--
"Trans"? "Trans" what? Transsexual or transgendered? Transsexual men in women's bathrooms isn't a new issue; transgendered men who aren't transsexuals in women's bathrooms is very much a new issue. It became an issue when activists agreed among themselves that non-ops were entitled by right to all the privileges women collectively had customarily been allowing to pre-ops and post-ops, and then convinced progressives collectively to leapfrog non-op transgendered men above women on the progressive stack, with the unintended consequence of de facto leapfrogging cis-male predators above women too.
You seem to be reading way too deep into 'they didn't want to hide any more.'
Thus this looks very much like discrimination.
"Discrimination"? Of course it's discrimination! And? It's sex discrimination.
It is something to watch two sides that are wrong, trying to enhance their side of the argument with labels.

It is not discrimination to allow transgenders into women's bathrooms. Discrimination is an actual word, with actual meaning. Just because something is "wrong" doesn't make it "discrimination". There is no prejudicial treatment here.
Women's rooms are an affirmative action program we males have collectively chosen to impose on ourselves as a way to partly ameliorate some of the effects of thirty million years of collectively taking advantage of our greater physical strength to lord it over females. Sex-based AA-programs in no way are equivalent to a dominant race treating another race as second-class citizens. (And as AA programs go, women's rooms are about the mildest instance imaginable. As Tom says, the men's room is right there.)
So we go from the Loren side of antiseptic moral argument that people that don't do wrong shouldn't have to be excluded to the Jarhyn side that is more laissez faire side of people should be allowed to be where they belong and we flip to the other side who are trying to wedge as much politics, jumbled up history, and denial into the argument they possibly can.

It is all very uncompelling.
Our courts have consistently held racial discrimination to a higher level of scrutiny than sex discrimination because sex is not race and we all bloody well know it.
*Looks around to see if there are any black women in the chatroom to respond to that nonsense*
The reason people make the "It's like whites-only bathrooms" argument is the same as the reason people make the "You're racist against Muslims" argument -- not because it makes any logical sense, but because it's an escalation. They know damn well that most people judge racial discrimination as worse than other forms of discrimination, so they're trying to take advantage of that judgement to gain unearned rhetorical mileage out of guilt-by-association.
They make the argument because it is emotional and they think that if they associate it with transgender access, it'll make their argument stronger. The argument would be wrong, just as all appeals to emotion fallacies are.

Or just like people who are against transgender people in women's spaces because transgender is just a choice and this is all a liberal conspiracy.

We have two sides as part of this argument that don't give a rat's ass or even acknowledge the existence of the other side. And neither of them are right.
Can everyone please knock of the analogies to race here?

But if you must then please be honest here—

Can we just please —especially all of you men here—acknowledge that treating any group of people as less than is simply wrong and immoral. We have a deep, very ugly history of treating persons of color as being sub human, and for some of them, as property who could be bought or sold, beaten as one would an animal and raped as well. Or even killed. Denied their full humanity, their right to self determination, to education, equality.

Echoes of that still ring through our society today. Different levels, different groups, perhaps different levels of severity, all over the world.

Women have also been treated as property who could be bought or sold, beaten, raped, forced to bear children, forced to abort children regardless of their own wants and needs. This is very much still going on in this country and all over the world.

There is only one reason that any girl or woman has to be afraid of a male appearing body in a female only space when any or all parties might be undressed:

Men rape women.
Men sexually abuse women.
Men beat and murder women.

It is impossible to know by looking who is likely to be dangerous and who is probably
safe.

We are sexually and physically and emotionally and economically abused by our fathers, brothers, cousins, uncles, grandfathers, teachers, coaches, doctors, neighbors: all people we should be able to trust. All people we are taught to trust.

The reason so any rape victims and murder are raped and murdered by people they know and trust is those are the people who have access.

They have easy access. To vulnerable victims.

Quit blaming women for being reluctant to give easy access to naked strangers with male appearing bodies who are probably safe, just as for most of us, our fathers and brothers are safe—but not all of them are—but who may not be safe.

Different families have different levels of nudity that are normal in their homes. It is often normal for young children to see their parents in some stage of undress and for parents to change diapers, help dress and bathe young children. This is an accepted context.

All of us would raise eyebrows at any parent still entering a bathroom when their own 12 year old was showering or changing clothes, unless an emergency or disability on the set of the child was involved. No matter how safe the parent was, how healthy, well adjusted, 100% not pedo—we’d all se it as weird.

Much weirder if it were a neighbor. Extremely alarming if it were a stranger. Most of us would be even more alarmed if the stranger were male. Police would likely be called. And if that stranger, male or female, were naked? Definitely serious charges. How many of us would expect our child, 12 or 16 yo to tolerate this and not react with fear and alarm? How many of us would ourselves refrain from physical violence in this situation? Even if there was no actual physical contact on the part of the stranger and our child.

What if it was our sister? Our mother ? Our Aunt? Our cousin? Our grandmother? Or the male versions of these?

Why is it different to be concerned about girls and women in locker rooms? Because they are public? They are public in the sense that any girl or woman ( with a membership) can access them. You know: people who are known to belong there They are absolutely places where a naked male body is unexpected, just as it’s unexpected to see a stranger’s naked male body in your home bathroom with your child, sister, spouse, mother, etc.

These are places where everyone would be alarmed to see someone who might pose a danger to their personal safety.

Yes, women can and sometimes are violent and can and sometimes do rape or otherwise assault other women, children, men. But statistically, men commit almost all sexual assaults and the vast majority of murders.

Why is it ok for all of us to be alarmed at a naked stranger in our homes, particularly in intimate spaces , where they are unexpected, but not ok for women to be alarmed at naked strangers who appear male to be in an intimate space when women are also likely to be in some stage of undress?

Btw, as always, when I wrote woman or girl, I mean cis and trans.

Why are cis women in this thread being castigated for pointing this out, told we are as bad as racists?

I assure you that if I were to appear in your gym locker room, naked, standing next to you as you showered, you’d be quite alarmed. You wouldn’t think yourselves akin to a segregationist, either. You’d wonder what the fuck I was doing there. You might not be afraid I’d assault you but most of you would grab a towel for yourselves and beg for one for me. You’d think I was crazy and possibly dangerous ( we all think crazy people are dangerous, right?) because I had so violated the social norms that separate sexes in intimate areas—private and public. At the very least, there would be some shouting and someone would call the authorities.


Now, could a mod please move these posts about trans people in bathrooms to their own thread and let’s let Roe V Wade have its own thread.
 
Back
Top Bottom