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

[Emily Lake]

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 know one of the biggest challenges with preferred pronouns and all the rest of this?

I can't tell if your niece is female or male. I can't tell if she's a female human being who has hirsutism, or a female human being who has taken exogenous testosterone, or if "she" is a male human with a natural beard.

And I know that you don't think it should make any difference to women whether or not your sibling's child is male or female... but it matters to most women quite a bit.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Fuck that noise. How can you even determine whether or not discrimination on the basis of sex is occurring if you can't fucking NAME the people you're talking about?

Are you going to be so kind as to allow us to talk about "Prostate-Owner Violence against Cervix-Havers"? Or do women just become unnameable non-entities in your oh-so-enlightened world?

 

[Emily Lake]

Did you not notice "niece"??

Yes, but words no longer mean what they used to mean. In this context "niece" could mean a female with hirsutism... or it could mean a completely male person with an intact beard who "identifies" as a women, and so everyone is expected to use female terminology and pronouns for him.

Niece no longer supplies any information about the sex of the person being discussed.

 

[Emily Lake]

We have no confirmed cases of serious harm (other than to the trans) from allowing trans to use the restroom of their presentation.

Yes you fucking do, you just keep ignoring them and handwaving them away.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Yes, we're very well aware that you have no fucks to give about half the population, all of your attention is focused on the subset of males who don't conform to your notion of masculinity, and how incredibly important it is to affirm the subjective feelings of those males.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Or, you know, those of us who object to males in female spaces, irrespective of how those males think about themselves.

 

[Emily Lake]

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

Because telling a man "no" is a cardinal sin to some men.

 

[Emily Lake]

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

I don't think mine have sucked. But they absolutely aren't kowtowing to this "be nice" game that has been foisted on women to our great cost. I'm not coddling the delicate feelings of men who might be put out by me not being willing to roll over and let men have whatever they want.

I'm too tired, too stressed, and just plain fed up with this bullshit to tip-toe around the risk of maybe hurting someone's feelings. And given that MANY of the posters in this thread seem to make a game of being assholes to me and calling me names, I don't see why I should be held to a higher standard.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Why are you so invested in making sure that males gain access to women's intimate spaces, and denying women the right to say no? Why do you think women should sacrifice our right to consent in order to make males feel better about themselves?

 

[Emily Lake]

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).

A penis (which needs no scare quotes - it's a real thing after all) doesn't make someone pervy rapey. But a penis does make that person a male of the human species. And males have a persistently observed higher rate of being pervy rapey. And women can't tell by looking which males are pervy rapey and which aren't. So males should be excluded from spaces where women are going to be naked or vulnerable.

Transgendered women are males of the human species.

Why should some males be given the special privilege of ignoring women's boundaries?

 

[Emily Lake]

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

Do you believe that the chances of a woman being attacked by a male human being is so infinitessimal that there's no reason to bar all males from using the public restroom of their choice?

Or do you believe that transgendered women are somehow not male?

 

[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?

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

Sorry LD, the double negative is killing me. Do you mean to say that there IS a way to tell? Or that you agree there is no way to tell?

 

[Toni]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a disgusting analogy.

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

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

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

Men can just get their thrills elsewhere.

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.

Absolutely not.

What I’ve consistently said is that I want doors on stalls to give everyone security and privacy.

 

[Toni]

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

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

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

This is a disgusting analogy.

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

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

Nobody said it is.

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

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

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

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

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

Men can just get their thrills elsewhere.

Right you are.

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

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

I agree that it would be rare for a transgender woman to attack anyone in a women only space.

My only concern—my absolute only concern is that in the moment, we are expecting everyone to immediately recognize someone who looks pretty much like a man and recognize—in that moment—that she’s just another woman. When I talk about women being traumatized, i mean all women. I would imagine it would be pretty traumatic for a trans woman to have other women scream when they saw her. I don’t want that! That would be terrible! And probably a lot of the other customers women would feel awful fur upsetting her. So why not skip the part to avoid the trauma as best we can.

I’m talking about a reflex reaction—and one that might well be fueled by PTSD. An in the moment panicked reflex reaction to something that women have been taught was dangerous: a male(appearing) person in a women’s only space.

THAT is why I strongly advocate for doors.

To prevent a reflex reaction and trauma that would upset everyone —and could so easily be prevented.

 

[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.

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

I don’t give a fuck about political party. I do not accept any man telling women what they must accept. Particularly when the men themselves helped drive that individual out of the men’s space AND because men are who creates the danger in the first place.

Loren still lives in 1950 when a lot of men believed the absolutely did have the right to tell women what they must do and what they must accept.

 

[Tigers!]

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.

Google is your friend
Admittedly in the UK but there will be instances in the USA.

 

[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

Sorry LD, the double negative is killing me. Do you mean to say that there IS a way to tell? Or that you agree there is no way to tell?

Yes, there are ways to tell.

 

[Toni]

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

Sorry LD, the double negative is killing me. Do you mean to say that there IS a way to tell? Or that you agree there is no way to tell?

Yes, there are ways to tell.

Can you please elucidate?

 

[Jarhyn]

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 know one of the biggest challenges with preferred pronouns and all the rest of this?

I can't tell if your niece is female or male.

Good. It's none of your goddamn business.

I can't tell if she's a female human being who has hirsutism, or a female human being who has taken exogenous testosterone, or if "she" is a male human with a natural beard.

Which is, in fact, part of the fucking point. You're not supposed to tell because despite what you claim, you can't fucking tell out in the wild unless someone actually drops trow.

And I know that you don't think it should make any difference to women whether or not your sibling's child is male or female... but it matters to most women quite a bit.

[removed]

Go ahead and fucking wonder. I haven't made it hard to figure out. Maybe just hard enough that YOU are left wondering, but I don't think LD or Toni has had any trouble with it.

The point is that my niece WILL have you jumping to incorrect conclusions, if you were to ever meet my niece. My niece will confuse you and leave you confused in the most fantastic of ways and that is your problem to deal with. If you are the sort of person I think you are, you very well could instigate an event involving my niece very similar to a murder we have already seen described in this shithole of a split of a thread.

I want you to be challenged in your perceptions and I want you to see that challenge to your perceptions until you come to the conclusion that "everything you know is wrong: up is down and black is white and short is long, and everything you thought was so important doesn't even matter."

[removed]

That said, I hope I know my niece well enough to think they would survive you and shame you and sue you to poverty were you to be so foolish.

Be confused as you want, because my niece knows who my niece is and isn't. What they aren't is someone who deserves in any way to be attacked on suspicion of being a flasher or worse for using the bathroom.

If someone murders my niece for using a bathroom, and comparable circumstances have happened, I will blame people like you, Emily, for the hate and fear you foment. And I will blame you, in particular, because you are here and the arguments you make are exactly the ones I will here from whoever would commit such a murder.

There are more murders around this subject than flashers. I expect an order of magnitude more, given the KKK fliers. I'm expecting a lot of deaths go reported with someone's assigned name at birth, reported as suicides in small towns after a lynching death, because that's exactly what the KKK flier suggests in so many allusions.

... 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.

Absolutely not.

What I’ve consistently said is that I want doors on stalls to give everyone security and privacy.

So, being inconsistently clear about this hasn't helped your position. Personally, I think your position should be compatible with mine: just make the division genderless, based around a reasonable expectation of security and privacy and etiquette to that end, and anyone violating that expectation will become a sex offender.

I'm fully willing to accept, for now, a compromise of expecting the person to at least be on testosterone-control, and assuming the issues are, for now, particular to that population.

But while I'm not expecting a complete lack of panick or initial distrust for my niece, I think it is reasonable to expect immediate apology when an ID is shown, for now, and some manner of shame for even asking given my niece will never behave in such a way as to warrant it.

I think that is a reasonable expectation, even in lieu of the betrayal that this presents to the "chubby dude with titties" fleeing a world of awful rapist men. Though as I would surmise, in an environment with enough rapist men in the mix, there will be just as many Karens and even TREFS to attack them no matter what they do.

As I have said with regards to Emily, I worry much worse will befall my niece every day, but I also know I will support their beard to the end, because it's their body and they have a right to put on display their face and to literally die on that hill (or not, and some day shave, though I would mourn it, for I love the unexpectedness of it). Maybe I will curse the day I told my niece I "love" their "beard and will mourn if" they "shave it". But I think I would rather curse the people who perpetuate whatever effect would hurt them for "being so bold" as to be proud of their body.

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

Sorry LD, the double negative is killing me. Do you mean to say that there IS a way to tell? Or that you agree there is no way to tell?

Yes, there are ways to tell.

Can you please elucidate?

I mean, at this point, after she has literally "disingenuously snipped it" twice, maybe even 3 times (I don't end up seeing most of her drivel)?

Just search the thread for "disingenuous" and it might be the top result, assuming there isn't a link.

I feel like there's this stupid "meeting effect" at this point: no matter how many times or ways I answer the same question in clear and understandable terms, the question gets asked like 2 minutes later, again.

 

[spikepipsqueak]

It is interesting to me that men here are much more willing to insist that we must accommodate a person with a penis than they are willing to acknowledge that some people have very good reasons to not wish to have to deal with an unexpected penis in the shower--for instance, someone who has been raped.

What "conversation" can be had with someone whose only solution to the prevalence of sexual assault is to scapegoat trans women for a crime almost exclusively committed by cis men in reality? There's no compromise being offered, only jail sentences to innocent women. That's not a dialogue, that's just more assault of women under a different guise and rationale, targeted at the minority subset of women with the least ability to defend themselves.

This stance illustrates the attitude Toni points out above. Cis women always get rights after everyone else despite being 50% of the population. You illustrate that most adeptly.

There are structural solutions for this problem which make life better for everyone, regardless of gender, morphology or orientation. The whole "scapegoating" accusation shows your complete unwillingness to understand another's perspective.

So you're just, what, doubling down on the nasty personal attacks, while also demanding empathy? An interesting strategy, to be sure.

Really? Coming from you? After how you have addressed Toni on the first page? That's as far as I've read, and my blood pressure doesn't want me to go down that rabbit hole of the other 22 pages.


I've never downvoted anyone in my life and I'll probably never do it again but I think you should be ashamed of yourself, Politesse.