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

[Bomb#20]

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.'

You know, it used to be normal for white people who had a Cherokee ancestor several generations back to treat it as a deep dark shameful family secret. But making people feel they had to do that was nuts, and they didn't want to hide any more, so we've pretty much all communicated to them that it's okay to be part Cherokee and they don't need to hide any more. Woohoo! And then some of them (cough cough) deduced from this positive cultural development that being 1/1024 part Cherokee entitled them to take advantage of Affirmative Action programs we've set up for the benefit of actual Cherokees and to externalize the costs of their participation onto actual Cherokees. That was an invalid inference procedure.

You seem to be using the exact same inference procedure.

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.

You appear to have lost track of what we were talking about. We were saying that not allowing transgenders into women's bathrooms is discrimination.

Whether it is also discrimination to allow transgenders into women's bathrooms is a separate question. Discrimination is as you say an actual word, with actual meaning, so the answer depends on whether cis-men are allowed in too. If we aren't, then of course the rule discriminates against cis-men -- "Separate but equal is not equal." On the other hand, if everybody is allowed in, that's not discrimination due to the usual mechanism that makes rules discriminatory; but there are other mechanisms. Google tells me "General agreement exists across UN agencies that failing to provide safe spaces for women -- where bodily privacy and safety from harassment are compromised -- violates women’s rights to equality and health."

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.

Not seeing how what I wrote has anything to do with those "sides". You appear to be trying to guilt-by-association your way out of addressing an argument you don't care for but can't refute.

It is all very uncompelling.

Well then, what analysis do you find compelling?

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*

Not seeing how you finding a person who is subjected to two forms of discrimination at once means the courts don't do what the courts do.

See Craig v. Boren.

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.

There are a lot more than two sides.

 

[Toni]

You appear to have lost track of what we were talking about. We were saying that not allowing transgenders into women's bathrooms is discrimination.

Whether it is also discrimination to allow transgenders into women's bathrooms is a separate question. Discrimination is as you say an actual word, with actual meaning, so the answer depends on whether cis-men are allowed in too. If we aren't, then of course the rule discriminates against cis-men -- "Separate but equal is not equal." On the other hand, if everybody is allowed in, that's not discrimination due to the usual mechanism that makes rules discriminatory; but there are other mechanisms. Google tells me "General agreement exists across UN agencies that failing to provide safe spaces for women -- where bodily privacy and safety from harassment are compromised -- violates women’s rights to equality and health."

Indeed.

I for one fail to understand why so many posters in this thread are perfectly willing to call cis women who are concerned about privacy and safety (some of us for ALL women and girls) as bigots akin to racial segregationists are willing to let Loren's whine that 'it's too expensive' to put doors on stalls stand without challenge. Silence seems an awful lot like complicity.

There is a lot of misogyny in the world. And more than enough in this thread to make my stomach turn.

 

[Emily Lake]

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

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

Excluding male humans from female-only intimate spaces isn't "vilifying" anyone. Refusing to grant special privileges to some males if they say magic words isn't "vilifying".

Oh wait.
Did you mean a person who was born female who now identifies as male and features male sexual paraphernalia? No worries - the same thing applies. I know that's what I do; I've heard too many stories!
Okay, my apology for making light of what is no doubt seriously traumatic for some people, and I know violence has been wrought upon women since time immemorial. But man, woman or child, straight, bi, gay, trans, whatever, by far the biggest threat, the most damage done to all categories, is wrought by straight males - men.

The vast majority of transwomen are straight males. They're males who are sexually attracted to female human beings.

I don't think elevating subcategories' threat level by criteria other than perhaps violent criminal record, is a helpful pursuit. Other than that, the most effective measure for avoiding harm has always been to have good judgment, stay alert to possible threats and elevate your situational awareness to minimize exposure.
In a word, don't drink at parties, regardless of your sex or gender. You could end up in jail or hurt by someone who ended up in jail.

My good judgement is to exclude ALL males from female intimate spaces, sports, and prisons.

 

[Emily Lake]

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

Visually, I agree. Otherwise, nope.

Nope what?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

Not seeing how what I wrote has anything to do with those "sides". You appear to be trying to guilt-by-association your way out of addressing an argument you don't care for but can't refute.

Yeah you apparently aren't self aware enough about your own posts.

It is all very uncompelling.

Well then, what analysis do you find compelling?

Toni's posts have been very compelling. Loren's, your's, Emily's, Jarhyn's, etc... have sucked.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

No we can't. I can see an obvious male in women's clothing. I have no idea how much time they have thought about it, nor how large their wardrobe is, and I have no clue whether they've spent a few hours at the DMV to change their license. I have no idea if they've ever seen a psychologist at all.

You seem to expect that all women will just take it on faith that any man in a dress is safe and not a risk at all. I think that's reckless disregard for the wellbeing and safety of women.

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

Why do you think other people should be obligated to bear the cost burden of an entirely voluntary cosmetic surgery that does not improve the functioning of the body, and actively increases health risks?

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

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

Your position is essentially "trust all men who say they're women" and if women don't agree, oh well.

If memory serves, your position is also that removing your own testicles makes you a "not-man" and that all "not-men" should be considered women whether women like it or not.

 

[Emily Lake]

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

Schroedinger's trans. If a male-woman feels unsafe in the men's room, then their fears are paramount and they must absolutely be given access to women's rooms that exclude male-men. But if women feel unsafe with males in the women's rooms, well, tough titties those women need to get over themselves and stop being bigots - the fears of women are overblown and exaggerated.

 

[Emily Lake]

You are presenting something minor as if it was major.

As a female of the human species who has been subjected to a fair bit of sexual offending by males... I disagree with your notion that a bepenised individual exposing his dick to women in a single-sex space without consent is "minor". I disagree with your idea that a bepenised individual looking at naked women without consent in a single-sex space is "minor".

I don't think that enabling and decriminalizing voyeurism and exhibitionism is good for women or children. I will acknowledge, however, that it's great for a lot of men who would absolutely love for it to be legal to peep and/or flash.

 

[Playball40]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a disgusting analogy.

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

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

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

Men can just get their thrills elsewhere.

So you want 'comfort' for yourself but want to DENY that to a transgendered woman? Because....why?
I agree private stalls would solve the issue, but I still don't believe that a TG woman possessing a 'penis' is a reasonable justification.

 

[Playball40]

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

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

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

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

Bullshit. Possessing a "penis" doesn't automatically make one "pervy rapey" and if that is indeed the case, then why should a transgendered woman be forced to use a restroom with the "pervy rapey MEN". Sorry, but my analogy stands. They are not SEPARATE but equal (as "men's room" often do NOT offer private stalls).

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a disgusting analogy.

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

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

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

Men can just get their thrills elsewhere.

So you want 'comfort' for yourself but want to DENY that to a transgendered woman?

JFCoaS.

 

[Playball40]

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

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

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

This is a disgusting analogy.

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

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

Nobody said it is.

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

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

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

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

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

Men can just get their thrills elsewhere.

Right you are.

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

It is. One doesn't choose to be harassed, marginalized, disrespected and murdered. The chances of a woman being attacked by a transgendered woman is so infintesimal there is NO reason to bar them from a public restroom of their choice

 

[Playball40]

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.

He's right though. TG persons are the easiest target in the GOPs purity wars.

 

[laughing dog]

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

Visually, I agree. Otherwise, nope.

Nope what?

Nope to there is no way to distinguish between the 2 choices

 

[Jarhyn]

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

Visually, I agree. Otherwise, nope.

Nope what?

Nope to there is no way to distinguish between the 2 choices

I mean, she's going to just keep doubling down until the thread gets closed or split to Elsewhere, and then go right back to making the claim as soon as it's faded slightly from memory that it's a stupid claim.

 

[Emily Lake]

But if penis is an acceptable proxy for sex criminal then black should be an acceptable proxy for mugger.

This might be the stupidest thing I've seen on the internet that wasn't parody.

 

[Emily Lake]

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

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

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

The last two warrant stricter scrutiny in general.

Would you care to elaborate? Do you mean "stricter scrutiny to decide which bepenised individuals get placed there without the consent of women"? And if so, why do those warrant stricter scrutiny than a shower or a changing room where minors might be present?

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

"Women who don't submit to letting men get naked in front of them are Republican lapdogs" comes across as a bit... umm... sexist.

 

[Emily Lake]

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:

Oh do fuck off with your disingenuous insistence that I'm some evil person for not wanting males in spaces where women are nude or vulnerable.

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.

I disagree. I am not convinced that the bare minimum of mimicry should give males the right to override female boundaries. I understand that you do think that's sufficient - you seem to believe that "trust me bro, don't you see I have a skirt?" should be all that's needed and that women should just shut the fuck up and let those special males get whatever they want. But I don't share your opinion, and I don't find your desire to be a strong enough motivator for me to change my mind.

Why do you believe that female human beings should be denied the right to deny consent in cases where the male in question has taken some exogenous drugs and spent an afternoon at the DMV?

What reasoning have you employed that leads you to believe that the desire of those males to be validated in their subjective identity is more important than the right of consent for women?

 

[Emily Lake]

The problem with this is that trans in bathrooms isn't a new issue--it's been working fine.

No Loren, it isn't working fine. It used to work fine, but then a bunch of activists forcibly changed the rules in a way that almost exclusively disadvantages and harms women.

I've said this before, I'll say it again. It used to be that only transsexuals who'd had several years of psychiatric counseling, were actively in the care of a psychiatrist, had a diagnosis, and were actively in the process of surgically altering their bodies ever used women's restrooms. And when they did so, they were unfailingly polite and respectful of the women in there because failure to do so could lose them the medical support they needed to be allowed to get the surgeries and the drugs needed to approximate a female appearance.

Some time within the last couple of decades, activists change what "trans" means in the first place. It no longer meant transsexual, and it now includes literally anyone who merely says they identify as the opposite sex (or anything else). Activist organizations pushed very, very hard to remove all of the previous safeguards that were in place. They have successfully pushed to remove any diagnosis requirements, any actively-in-treatment requirements, any waiting periods from being taken into consideration. They've made it a cornerstone of their platform to remove any barriers and to use only self-declaration of gender identity alone. Those activists have been very strident in insisting that anyone who says they're a woman is a woman, and no discussion around that is tolerated. In addition, there's no expectation that such men shave their beards, or wear makeup, or dresses, or in any fashion at all attempt to realistically pass.

They've created a situation in which literally ANY man who says "I identify as a woman" has to be given unquestioned access to women's restrooms, showers, changing rooms, sports, and prisons.

And THAT new interpretation of what "trans" means in the first place is NOT working for women.