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

[Toni]

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.

Jahryn, I’ve been absolutely consistent that I advocate for doors in stalls. Absolutely consistent.

That dues not mean that I have or must make the same statement in every single post.

Frankly people are quite happy to ignore that I do consistently fly advocate for doors whenever it suits their personal POV.

Frankly everyone is happily going along with Loren saying noooo doors are too expensive and too much trouble and who cares if women are afraid of being raped again it’s not a problem for ME so it’s not a problem because my mommy and daddy had me shower with adults of both sexes when I was a little kid and see how well adjusted I am now o e rises feeling matter and no one else gets to have feelings.

I don’t want any harm to come to your niece—not even a hurt feeling.

My belief is that doors give everyone privacy for their own self and from other people.

 

[ZiprHead]

This whole thing comes down to being cis men are the problem. Cis men faking a trans identity to gain access to women's spaces and cis men who beat up trans in the "wrong" bathroom.

 

[Toni]

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.

Actually I was asking LD to elucidate what ‘ways to tell’ exist. I may be missing something.

Frankly I don’t hold in my head absolutely everything that everybody or anybody wrote. I lose track of arguments in threads that go on page after page after page. Occasionally I mix up authors/posters. Im pretty sure at least some times some posters mix up me and Emily, something that neither of us likely finds flattering ( no dig on Emily -I like to think of myself as being memorably unique —but mostly we disagree about a LOT)

It’s easy to get caught up in the emotions of some threads when they strike a deep cord or hit close to home. Frankly issues of safety, rape, sexual abuse hit close to home for me. Which is why I’ve hung in despite a lot of mischaracterization, misrepresentation and personal insults.

 

[Jarhyn]

Jahryn, I’ve been absolutely consistent that I advocate for doors in stalls. Absolutely consistent.

Not what I'm talking about.

This is the wrong clause of the statement to assume my statement is discussing.

This:

"I still don't believe that a TG woman possessing a 'penis' is a reasonable justification [for attack]"

That is what I think you have been inconsistent in saying, particularly in responses to Emily, who thinks it is, because this is buried as a belief in every one of her posts, because they are made foundered on the belief that believing someone to possess a penis is sufficient to justify attacks.

I don't want to confuse you with Emily, but making THAT statement, that posessing a penis doesn't justify an attack any more than believing someone posesses a penis, the majority of arguments around the subject at least between you me and Loren would evaporate.

The principle belief here is that "appearing like you might have a penis is not sufficient justification to attack someone, under any circumstances".

Most here are willing to concede "having every reason to expect you are hopped up on testosterone" can be used, today, to exclude the vast majority of "men" from being "men" to everyone else, at least in the contexts of a restroom. Loren would accept it (in fact does, indirectly, with ID marker support). I support it. I haven't seen LD or Politesse's views under enough scrutiny recently enough to get them exactly?

Like, this is a compromise that pretty much everyone here is willing to accept except Emily.

I would assume this is because the effect of Emily's rhetoric would be, quite suspiciously, to enable and validate purity/attire/grooming policing on femininity, the worst kind of sex essentialism, and I strongly suspect this is a goal of hers, even if she doesn't understand why she wants it or that this is what she is asking for and privately wants.

Given she can't figure out my niece, I strongly think she is not up to the task of figuring herself out.

 

[Jarhyn]

Actually I was asking LD to elucidate what ‘ways to tell’ exist. I may be missing something.

This ended up being exactly the topic of an exchange, though, on exactly the comment thread being discussed there.

https://iidb.org/threads/trans-issues-split-from-roe-v-wade-is-on-deck.30157/post-1356005 will take you right there to a comment where it is discussed, however much of the actual description of "ways to tell" get snipped out of any response Emily levels asking about ways to tell.

I find it the banality of her dishonesty to be very frustrating, and I'm sorry if it gets splashed onto you, but she is literally deleting the answer and then re-asking the question in response to the posts containing the answer, and you ended up unwittingly joining her refrain of asking.

 

[Toni]

Jahryn, I’ve been absolutely consistent that I advocate for doors in stalls. Absolutely consistent.

Not what I'm talking about.

This is the wrong clause of the statement to assume my statement is discussing.

This:

"I still don't believe that a TG woman possessing a 'penis' is a reasonable justification [for attack]"

That is what I think you have been inconsistent in saying, particularly in responses to Emily, who thinks it is, because this is buried as a belief in every one of her posts, because they are made foundered on the belief that believing someone to possess a penis is sufficient to justify attacks.

I don't want to confuse you with Emily, but making THAT statement, that posessing a penis doesn't justify an attack any more than believing someone posesses a penis, the majority of arguments around the subject at least between you me and Loren would evaporate.

The principle belief here is that "appearing like you might have a penis is not sufficient justification to attack someone, under any circumstances".

Most here are willing to concede "having every reason to expect you are hopped up on testosterone" can be used, today, to exclude the vast majority of "men" from being "men" to everyone else, at least in the contexts of a restroom. Loren would accept it (in fact does, indirectly, with ID marker support). I support it. I haven't seen LD or Politesse's views under enough scrutiny recently enough to get them exactly?

Like, this is a compromise that pretty much everyone here is willing to accept except Emily.

I would assume this is because the effect of Emily's rhetoric would be, quite suspiciously, to enable and validate purity/attire/grooming policing on femininity, the worst kind of sex essentialism, and I strongly suspect this is a goal of hers, even if she doesn't understand why she wants it or that this is what she is asking for and privately wants.

Given she can't figure out my niece, I strongly think she is not up to the task of figuring herself out.

I am truly lost.

I don’t believe in physically assaulting anyone except in actual self defense : If someone physically attacks you or if they are credibly threatening to attack you with a weapon. I am a theoretical pacifist but yes, I’ve had to physically defend myself and others.

I’ve been pretty consistent and open about being a pacifist in theory but also having physically defends myself and others when necessary.

I don’t write that in every post, no.

I confess that I’m also confused by how you describe your niece. And I feel compelled to point out what I am certain you already know: a bearded person who wears typically male apparel is almost certainly going to be perceived as male. Especially at first glance because that person is exhibiting traditionally male markers: beard, mane clothing.

You may not think that is fair or moral but it is simply fact. Of course looks can be very deceiving. I look like much more of a pushover than I actually am. A very tall, muscular person who appears very macho may be extremely tender hearted and extremely sensitive and afraid of kittens.

In the context of a women only space, an individual with a beard is going to arouse suspicion of not really belonging in that space. It may not be fair to your niece anymore than it is fair to assume that a tall person is good at basketball. A lot of people will assume that a tall mane can sink more baskets from the few throw line than a short woman—and they might be very wrong. But for women in a women’s only space, they absolutely will make a snap judgement t about that stranger with a beard if there is nothing else to indicate that she is a she who belongs in the space.

I’m not saying that is how the world should work. I’m saying that women must operate in the world with a certain level of vigilance about apparent males where they seem not to belong.

I would be dishonest if I said otherwise.

Of course your niece has every right to sport a beard and wear whatever she wants to wear. But she will be evaluated and she will be judged as we all are judged every day.

A lot of people would likely be more comfortable if your niece got rid of the beard and wore famine clothing if she wants to be in women only spaces.

Nothing is compelling your niece to do anything to make other people more comfortable. Maybe that’s not her job.

But I don’t think it is the job of other women to look at a bearded individual Abd assume: she’s one of us, especially if she wears typically make clothing. Because we can’t read minds.

We are forced to make assumptions about the intentions of other people, though, for our own safety. Unfortunately.

Without other visual cues, people might make the wrong assumption about whether your niece is male or female.

I’m sorry if you find that upsetting. But tell the truth: if someone e walks into a bathroom wearing Nazi gear, I would guess that you would evaluate that person with respect to your personal safety differently than if they walked in wearing a Pride t-shirt.

I certainly would.

 

[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.

Can you please elucidate?

Talking to the person in depth is a possible way to tell.

In my experience, most women have a well-developed “creepdar”.

 

[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?

Talking to the person in depth is a possible way to tell.

In my experience, most women have a well-developed “creepdar”.

Ok but women are not going to get into a conversation with a stranger in the restroom if that stranger appears threatening. Unless it’s a group of women who know each other talking to a single possibly threatening stranger. Safety in numbers.

BTW, women don’t always have good creepdar. If they did, there would not be nearly as many domestic abuse cases.

 

[Elixir]

The vast majority of transwomen are straight males.

Wow. I didn’t know that. I’m surprised you do.
If you don’t mind me asking, how did you discover this astounding fact?

 

[Tigers!]

Yes, there are ways to tell.

Can you please elucidate?

Talking to the person in depth is a possible way to tell.

In my experience, most women have a well-developed “creepdar”.

Most women have a well developed 'creepdar' in public - shopping, public transport, pubs, sports grounds, even work places etc. but when they go into a ladies toilet/changeroom it tones down as the area is/was considered "safe".
I only say this because my daughter and I had a discussion about this about 4 years ago, after she had to intervene in a changeroom at work where a male staff member was in there and menacing a very petite female staff member. She expected to be safe in there.
Until then I had no considered this in any real way.

 

[Tigers!]

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

How many women must be attacked by a transgendered woman before it considered not to be infinitesimal?

 

[Tigers!]

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).

I do not know what the situation is like in the USA but in Aust. I have never found a men's room without doors on the stalls (except for acts of vandalism).
They are added automatically. No nonsense about cost, area taken up etc.

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

You know that's ad hominem, right? No criticism of me can identify any error in my argument.

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.

Well then, what are you on my case for? The point of my posts was that Loren's and Playball's argument to the effect that women-only bathrooms are just like white-only bathrooms is a steaming pile of dingos' kidneys. That's something Toni and I appear to be in perfect agreement about. So if you think she made a better case for our shared view than I did, cool! In that case, never mind me, just listen to Toni. It's all the same to me as long as you're persuaded that the LP/PB argument sucks.

 

[Toni]

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

How many women must be attacked by a transgendered woman before it considered not to be infinitesimal?

I personally don’t think that is really the issue-or it’s not the issue for me

For me, the issue is how anyone in a women only space will KNOW on sight, in the instant that the person in a female immediate is a woman if that person presents as male.

It’s a question of safety. To me, there would be five possibilities if a male appearing person appeared unannounced in a woman only space, listed in likelihood of occurrence, imo.

1. It’s a man who made a mistake and meant to go to the men’s

2. It’s a maintenance worker who forgot to announce maintenance as a warning.

3. It’s a male police officer in hot pursuit

4. It’s a guy who is looking to get some thrill out of invading a woman only space, in any way, including assaulting a woman

5. It’s a trans woman who has a more masculine appearance.

In the second and third case and usually the first case, the person in question would be fully clothed: easier to spot immediately.

In the other 2 cases, depending on the space: maybe not.

In a space where some were not dressed, it could be very upsetting or frightening to the women/girls.

If the person were there for nefarious reasons, that would present a genuine threat to safety.

In the last case, the big deal would be for both cis and trans women to be upset or embarrassed by the mistake.

It could be very difficult for the other occupants to —in the moment—discern between the fourth and fifth scenario.

 

[TomC]

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).

I do not know what the situation is like in the USA but in Aust. I have never found a men's room without doors on the stalls (except for acts of vandalism).
They are added automatically. No nonsense about cost, area taken up etc.

I have lived here in the US for nearly 70 years. Every men's room I have ever known had toilet stalls with doors.
Tom

 

[Playball40]

In the context of a women only space, an individual with a beard is going to arouse suspicion of not really belonging in that space. It may not be fair to your niece anymore than it is fair to assume that a tall person is good at basketball. A lot of people will assume that a tall mane can sink more baskets from the few throw line than a short woman—and they might be very wrong. But for women in a women’s only space, they absolutely will make a snap judgement t about that stranger with a beard if there is nothing else to indicate that she is a she who belongs in the space.

I'm very confused by this statement. So a person with a full beard is expected to use the MEN'S room even if they have a vagina, but a TG woman from all outward appearances, but happens to have a penis, is expected to use the MEN'S room too? Do you not see the infringement of rights here? Specifically against TG women?

 

[Playball40]

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).

I do not know what the situation is like in the USA but in Aust. I have never found a men's room without doors on the stalls (except for acts of vandalism).
They are added automatically. No nonsense about cost, area taken up etc.

I have lived here in the US for nearly 70 years. Every men's room I have ever known had toilet stalls with doors.
Tom

Not in the same number as women's rooms and you know it.

 

[Playball40]

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

How many women must be attacked by a transgendered woman before it considered not to be infinitesimal?

I personally don’t think that is really the issue-or it’s not the issue for me

For me, the issue is how anyone in a women only space will KNOW on sight, in the instant that the person in a female immediate is a woman if that person presents as male.

It’s a question of safety. To me, there would be five possibilities if a male appearing person appeared unannounced in a woman only space, listed in likelihood of occurrence, imo.

1. It’s a man who made a mistake and meant to go to the men’s

2. It’s a maintenance worker who forgot to announce maintenance as a warning.

3. It’s a male police officer in hot pursuit

4. It’s a guy who is looking to get some thrill out of invading a woman only space, in any way, including assaulting a woman

5. It’s a trans woman who has a more masculine appearance.

In the second and third case and usually the first case, the person in question would be fully clothed: easier to spot immediately.

In the other 2 cases, depending on the space: maybe not.

In a space where some were not dressed, it could be very upsetting or frightening to the women/girls.

If the person were there for nefarious reasons, that would present a genuine threat to safety.

In the last case, the big deal would be for both cis and trans women to be upset or embarrassed by the mistake.

It could be very difficult for the other occupants to —in the moment—discern between the fourth and fifth scenario.

Or a TG man being forced to use the restroom that purports to anatomy and not gender.

 

[Playball40]

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).

I do not know what the situation is like in the USA but in Aust. I have never found a men's room without doors on the stalls (except for acts of vandalism).
They are added automatically. No nonsense about cost, area taken up etc.

In the US, there are far fewer private stalls in men's rooms if there are urinals present.

 

[Toni]

Yes, there are ways to tell.

Can you please elucidate?

Talking to the person in depth is a possible way to tell.

In my experience, most women have a well-developed “creepdar”.

Most women have a well developed 'creepdar' in public - shopping, public transport, pubs, sports grounds, even work places etc. but when they go into a ladies toilet/changeroom it tones down as the area is/was considered "safe".
I only say this because my daughter and I had a discussion about this about 4 years ago, after she had to intervene in a changeroom at work where a male staff member was in there and menacing a very petite female staff member. She expected to be safe in there.
Until then I had no considered this in any real way.

And sometimes, creepdar fails which is how we have things like domestic abuse and date rape.

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

How many women must be attacked by a transgendered woman before it considered not to be infinitesimal?

I personally don’t think that is really the issue-or it’s not the issue for me

For me, the issue is how anyone in a women only space will KNOW on sight, in the instant that the person in a female immediate is a woman if that person presents as male.

It’s a question of safety. To me, there would be five possibilities if a male appearing person appeared unannounced in a woman only space, listed in likelihood of occurrence, imo.

1. It’s a man who made a mistake and meant to go to the men’s

2. It’s a maintenance worker who forgot to announce maintenance as a warning.

3. It’s a male police officer in hot pursuit

4. It’s a guy who is looking to get some thrill out of invading a woman only space, in any way, including assaulting a woman

5. It’s a trans woman who has a more masculine appearance.

In the second and third case and usually the first case, the person in question would be fully clothed: easier to spot immediately.

In the other 2 cases, depending on the space: maybe not.

In a space where some were not dressed, it could be very upsetting or frightening to the women/girls.

If the person were there for nefarious reasons, that would present a genuine threat to safety.

In the last case, the big deal would be for both cis and trans women to be upset or embarrassed by the mistake.

It could be very difficult for the other occupants to —in the moment—discern between the fourth and fifth scenario.

Or a TG man being forced to use the restroom that purports to anatomy and not gender.

i agree: that would be a very difficult situation. Universal stalls with transwomen being slowed to use women’s facilities seems like the best solution.