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

[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?

Can you provide me with a number legitimate cases where a woman was attacked by a transgendered woman? Not a cis-man, but a tg woman.

Here you go.

MOJ stats show 76 of the 129 male-born prisoners identifying as transgender (not counting any with GRCs) have at least 1 conviction of sexual offence. This includes 36 convictions for rape and 10 for attempted rape. These are clearly male type crimes (rape is defined as penetration with a penis).

A parliamentary enquiry from the UK.

In the US, rape includes unwanted penetration of vagina or rectum or forced oral
genital contact.

 

[Emily Lake]

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?

*IF* a transoman *ACTUALLY* passes, then it's not going to be an issue, is it? They will pass - they won't be clocked. The problem is that a very large number of self-declared transwomen do NOT pass, not even remotely. And without significant facial cosmetic surgery, a whole lot of actual female women can tell that the person in a dress and pumps is a male human being. Because identifying the sex of other members of our species is a profoundly and deeply important skill, one that has been wired into us pretty well via evolution. And female human beings are better at it than male human beings are.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Why should that matter? You guys keep telling women that it's so few transwomen that we shouldn't worry about it, it's so incredibly rare that we're worried about nothing and should just calm down and stop making such a big deal out of it, geez, were so emotional about things!

If that's the case, and it's so rare... then just one or two toilets with doors should suffice, don't you think?

 

[Emily Lake]

Can you provide me with a number legitimate cases where a woman was attacked by a transgendered woman? Not a cis-man, but a tg woman.

Not Our Crimes | Trans-Identified Male Prison Population Data

Documenting the realities of men who commit crimes and claim womanhood.

notourcrimes.info

You can filter and see whether they identified as trans prior to being incarcerated or after, as well as what category of crime, and whether they're housed in a women's prison or a men's.

These are only the verified cases where the offender was actually incarcerated for their crime. And this is only in the US.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Agree. But allowing tg women in a women's only space is not going to stop, nor invite, cis men faking a trans identity. There is NOTHING stopping that now.

The difference is that we women used to be able to raise a stink when a man went into a female space, and they woul dbe removed. Management of the facility, as well as law enforcement would be on our side.

Now if we complain about an obvious male being in female spaces... we're called names, harassed, and threatened for doing so. We're no longer ALLOWED to object to males entering our spaces. So now we get men who claim to be transgendered, and who are wearing dresses and make-up, going into women's bathrooms, shower rooms, changing rooms, etc. who then proceed to masturbate while in there, film themselves doing it, and post it on porn sites.

And we aren't supposed to object to that?

 

[Emily Lake]

The only way out I am currently seeing is accepting an ID marker being sufficient, because it presages an extraordinary amount of work and treatment and handling and discussion getting to that point.

No it doesn't, Jarhyn.

It *used to* indicate a significant amount of treatment and counseling, but that's no longer true. In California, for example, you can literally just go to the DMV with your current ID and ask to change the sex marker on your ID. That's it, nothing more. Nothing at all.

California, in its infinite wisdom, allowed a man with a history of felony sex offenses change his ID to "F"... and then when that man who had a multiple felony exposure convictions in his past went and got naked at a korean spa... the law backed him up in his "right" to expose his dick to women without consent. After all, his ID said "F", right?

Identity Document Laws and Policies - Movement Advancement Project

These maps outline ID laws and policies for updating gender markers on driver's licenses and birth certificates, as well as legal requirements for name changes by state.

mapresearch.org

22 states require nothing at all in order to change the sex marker on your ID. It's on request, fill out a form, get a new id.

 

[Emily Lake]

Lots of things are stopping it, namely the large procedural and medical hurdles that actually exist to establishing a trans identity in most jurisdictions.

Less than half of the states require any real hurdles. 22+ DC require nothing at all except a request and a bit of time at the DMV. Another 5 will accept a provider certification, which doesn't actually need any counseling or treatment - you can simply go see your doc and say "Hey I'm trans" and they can write you a note to take to the DMV with you.

There used to be procedural and medical hurdles. That's no longer the case in many places.

 

[Emily Lake]

We ( but mostly men) need to address male propensity towards violence toward women, anyone in the LGBTQIA + community or anyone else they deem not ok.

We women have been trying to fight this for a long time. At this point, it's up to men to fix their own problems. I'll stick with common sense safeguards for female human beings until the males have fixed their shit.

 

[Emily Lake]

"Men" in this response are a religion. It is not "male" violence but the violence of Men.

No, Jarhyn. It's MALE violence.

 

[Emily Lake]

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”.

Are you actually suggesting that women should get into a deep discussion with the male in a female single-sex intimate space before they can take action?

No.

Okay. So please elaborate on how we're supposed to tell which male in the female single-sex intimate space is "safe" and which is not?

I mean, hey, maybe women should also pause in the dark carpark and engage in a soul-searching conversation with the random male before we can decide whether they might be a risk. Of course, if they actually do mug or abduct or rape or kill us, then we'll have our answer! Women should totally wait until after the harm has occurred, otherwise it's bigoted.

Your bigotry needs no waiting.

Do you maybe want to take another stab at this, LD? Because you just said that assuming a strange male in a dark carpark might be a risk and taking appropriate action to stay safe prior to having a deep discussion with them was bigotry.

 

[Emily Lake]

You know what's extra super fun? There are at least a few male posters here who also think that transwomen should be excluded from female intimate spaces (bathrooms are a mixed bag).

Funny how Toni gets nearly as much harassment as I do, even though she's incredibly willing to accommodate transgender identified males in female spaces.

None of the male posters get attacked or harassed.

 

[Jarhyn]

What I...

...have been trying to explain is that IN THAT MOMENT women [do not] need something to indicate that the person before them with an exposed naked penis [genitals] is...

..Anything other than someone exposing their genitals inappropriately so as to know that they are a pervert and sex offender.

If things are at that point something is already wrong.

(Unless it's a shower, in which case the people who own the shower facility should have already told the person where to go, and the people who use the open nominally nudity-tolerant shower facilities should damn well be willing to tolerate nudity according to the facility's policies; for The Saloon, the policy is "people will look very intently at your junk, and may pay you money for the novelty of it".)

 

[laughing dog]

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”.

Are you actually suggesting that women should get into a deep discussion with the male in a female single-sex intimate space before they can take action?

No.

Okay. So please elaborate on how we're supposed to tell which male in the female single-sex intimate space is "safe" and which is not?

This started when I disputed your claim that there was no way to tell. Talking to them can work. Is it fool proof? No. Nothing is fool proof.

I mean, hey, maybe women should also pause in the dark carpark and engage in a soul-searching conversation with the random male before we can decide whether they might be a risk. Of course, if they actually do mug or abduct or rape or kill us, then we'll have our answer! Women should totally wait until after the harm has occurred, otherwise it's bigoted.

Your bigotry needs no waiting.

Do you maybe want to take another stab at this, LD? Because you just said that assuming a strange male in a dark carpark might be a risk and taking appropriate action to stay safe prior to having a deep discussion with them was bigotry.

No, I didn’t.

 

[Toni]

When I was a young college student, I volunteered at a suicide/other issues hotline. We were all volunteers, underwent some training and there were psychologists who served as resources and were fairly hands on.
It was a call in only center: we did not meet callers. Our actual location was anonymous and most of us used pseudonyms. Everything was confidential: we did not discuss what happened on our shifts with anyone other than other staff or our advisors.

We got the usual compliment of calls for the day, and actually not many suicide or suicide considering but more just lonely people who needed to talk. We referred people to various resources for pregnancy testing, and care including abortion care, people who needed referrals or encouragement for drug/alcohol issues, etc. marital issues. My boyfriend/girlfriend broke up with me or hits me. I’m flunking and afraid to tell my parents. That sort of thing. Of course we got a decent share of masturbators.

We covered shifts with a male and a female staffer at all times, unless someone could not make a shift and someone of the same sex/gender could not cover. That was rare. We were not allowed to hang up on a caller, no matter how abusive they were. Of course the masterbators were male, and wanted to talk to female staffers. If a guy answered, they’d hang up. Protocol indicated if we got a hang up, our shift partner answered the next call. So if the guy got a hang up, the woman answered the next call. So that’s how our regulars got to connect with a woman.

There were some regulars and they mostly knew when their preferred female staffer member usually worked. One regular was a particularly lonely high school student. We all knew him. Eventually he’d talk to some of the guys about other stuff.

I imagine most of the women here have received these calls at some time. I think it’s less common for men to receive them. At home you just hang up. We could not hang up. Some of the calls were upsetting beyond the fact that some guy had in essence a captive audience to his performance and that was you. A few callers included some pretty violent stuff. Not fun.

There were discussions at regular meeting about how to handle the situation. The men saw no problem. Some of the women struggled because some of the callers were abusive. We suggested the men might feel differently if they had to take the call and could not hang up. Nah, they’d be cool, we were assured.

And then, a few men started getting calls from female masturbators. I never knew for sure if one or two of the women staffers were responsible for such calls or if they convinced a friend to call but it was possible. I did not ask. And no it was not me.

Anyway, the men freaked the shit out. They were shocked and did not know how to respond. It was kind of amusing to see the guy who assured us it was no big deal look so freaked out.

If I remember correctly, at the next staff meeting, it was resolved that if the caller became overly violent or abusive, it was ok to hang up if you could not redirect the conversation.

Calls from women masturbating stopped.

This discussion somehow made me think about that.

 

[Toni]

What I...

...have been trying to explain is that IN THAT MOMENT women [do not] need something to indicate that the person before them with an exposed naked penis [genitals] is...

..Anything other than someone exposing their genitals inappropriately so as to know that they are a pervert and sex offender.

If things are at that point something is already wrong.

(Unless it's a shower, in which case the people who own the shower facility should have already told the person where to go, and the people who use the open nominally nudity-tolerant shower facilities should damn well be willing to tolerate nudity according to the facility's policies; for The Saloon, the policy is "people will look very intently at your junk, and may pay you money for the novelty of it".)

Yeah, I don’t go to The Saloon.

I understand where you’re coming from Abd the point is valid. The problem from a cis female perspective is that for most of us, encountering a penis in the women’s shower next to us would be very much unexpected and potentially risky frightening and even traumatizing if, say, your uncle used to walk in on you —regularly —when you stayed over with your cousin until you just stopped spending the night at your cousins and had to avoid your uncle at Thanksgivings, etc. because he got pretty handsy if no one else was around. For a lot of people, the only context of an unexpected penis was a very negative one.

None of that has a damn thing to do with the trans woman, of course. I truly mean that.

But PTSD conditioned fight or flight or freeze, etc. can kick in no matter how much you try to not let it.

 

[Jarhyn]

I understand where you’re coming from Abd the point is valid. The problem from a cis female perspective is that for most of us, encountering a penis in the women’s shower next to us would be very much unexpected and potentially risky frightening and even traumatizing if, say, your uncle used to walk in on you —regularly —when you stayed over with your cousin until you just stopped spending the night at your cousins and had to avoid your uncle at Thanksgivings, etc. because he got pretty handsy if no one else was around. For a lot of people, the only context of an unexpected penis was a very negative one.

I think I would openly threaten to emasculate your uncle if you or anyone else in the family said he did it again, even if I knew they were lying but so long as he couldn't prove it; and I would threaten it over a Thanksgiving table.

That kind of behavior is fucking gross.

That said, accomodations for a business can screen. The problem here is that when a business has this kind of accommodation, it's much more practical and equitable to discriminate on material reality: it can be declared not a gym for those who are reasonably suspected of being on testosterone in any way. That's a material reality, does effectively discriminate against Men, and allows the point of registration and entry be a controlled location (and a background check against sex offenders to be rendered).

These -- and an expectation of particular etiquette in the space -- are what create security in the space.

I think that our agreed-upon measure of individual accomodations for those who wish to guarantee a lack of exposure is sufficient to prevent any actual penis viewing, if such spaces wish to cater to a nudity-intolerant crowd. There is a ready solution and I would subsidize it's implementation in a heartbeat.

 

[Toni]

I understand where you’re coming from Abd the point is valid. The problem from a cis female perspective is that for most of us, encountering a penis in the women’s shower next to us would be very much unexpected and potentially risky frightening and even traumatizing if, say, your uncle used to walk in on you —regularly —when you stayed over with your cousin until you just stopped spending the night at your cousins and had to avoid your uncle at Thanksgivings, etc. because he got pretty handsy if no one else was around. For a lot of people, the only context of an unexpected penis was a very negative one.

I think I would openly threaten to emasculate your uncle if you or anyone else in the family said he did it again, even if I knew they were lying but so long as he couldn't prove it; and I would threaten it over a Thanksgiving table.

That kind of behavior is fucking gross.

That said, accomodations for a business can screen. The problem here is that when a business has this kind of accommodation, it's much more practical and equitable to discriminate on material reality: it can be declared not a gym for those who are reasonably suspected of being on testosterone in any way. That's a material reality, does effectively discriminate against Men, and allows the point of registration and entry be a controlled location (and a background check against sex offenders to be rendered).

These -- and an expectation of particular etiquette in the space -- are what create security in the space.

I think that our agreed-upon measure of individual accomodations for those who wish to guarantee a lack of exposure is sufficient to prevent any actual penis viewing, if such spaces wish to cater to a nudity-intolerant crowd. There is a ready solution and I would subsidize it's implementation in a heartbeat.

I want to be clear here: My uncle never behaved in any way that was remotely inappropriate towards me or by siblings or his children. It was a purely hypothetical situation.

Eventually, I did have to inflict pain on the person who kept assaulting me because avoidance did not work. Later, in other situations, I skipped the avoidance thing and had a personal rule was that after being told Don’t Touch Me twice, I was not holding back. One time, and this was possibly illegal of me to do but I did preemptively threaten to castrate a very large co-worker who started talking about how I had better start being nicer to him. I did not fancy finding myself in the walk in freezer with that creep. He left me alone after that. When I was young, I weighed under 100 lbs on a small frame. I was often underestimated and I took full advantage of that when I needed to. Most of the time I could avoid the creeps.

Yes, vetting would certainly offer a stronger sense of security.

 

[Tigers!]

I understand where you’re coming from Abd the point is valid. The problem from a cis female perspective is that for most of us, encountering a penis in the women’s shower next to us would be very much unexpected and potentially risky frightening and even traumatizing if, say, your uncle used to walk in on you —regularly —when you stayed over with your cousin until you just stopped spending the night at your cousins and had to avoid your uncle at Thanksgivings, etc. because he got pretty handsy if no one else was around. For a lot of people, the only context of an unexpected penis was a very negative one.

I think I would openly threaten to emasculate your uncle if you or anyone else in the family said he did it again, even if I knew they were lying but so long as he couldn't prove it; and I would threaten it over a Thanksgiving table.

That kind of behavior is fucking gross.

That said, accomodations for a business can screen. The problem here is that when a business has this kind of accommodation, it's much more practical and equitable to discriminate on material reality: it can be declared not a gym for those who are reasonably suspected of being on testosterone in any way. That's a material reality, does effectively discriminate against Men, and allows the point of registration and entry be a controlled location (and a background check against sex offenders to be rendered).

These -- and an expectation of particular etiquette in the space -- are what create security in the space.

I think that our agreed-upon measure of individual accomodations for those who wish to guarantee a lack of exposure is sufficient to prevent any actual penis viewing, if such spaces wish to cater to a nudity-intolerant crowd. There is a ready solution and I would subsidize it's implementation in a heartbeat.

I want to be clear here: My uncle never behaved in any way that was remotely inappropriate towards me or by siblings or his children. It was a purely hypothetical situation.

Eventually, I did have to inflict pain on the person who kept assaulting me because avoidance did not work. Later, in other situations, I skipped the avoidance thing and had a personal rule was that after being told Don’t Touch Me twice, I was not holding back. One time, and this was possibly illegal of me to do but I did preemptively threaten to castrate a very large co-worker who started talking about how I had better start being nicer to him. I did not fancy finding myself in the walk in freezer with that creep. He left me alone after that. When I was young, I weighed under 100 lbs on a small frame. I was often underestimated and I took full advantage of that when I needed to. Most of the time I could avoid the creeps.

Yes, vetting would certainly offer a stronger sense of security.

Self-defence is perfectly acceptable course of action.

 

[Jarhyn]

I understand where you’re coming from Abd the point is valid. The problem from a cis female perspective is that for most of us, encountering a penis in the women’s shower next to us would be very much unexpected and potentially risky frightening and even traumatizing if, say, your uncle used to walk in on you —regularly —when you stayed over with your cousin until you just stopped spending the night at your cousins and had to avoid your uncle at Thanksgivings, etc. because he got pretty handsy if no one else was around. For a lot of people, the only context of an unexpected penis was a very negative one.

I think I would openly threaten to emasculate your uncle if you or anyone else in the family said he did it again, even if I knew they were lying but so long as he couldn't prove it; and I would threaten it over a Thanksgiving table.

That kind of behavior is fucking gross.

That said, accomodations for a business can screen. The problem here is that when a business has this kind of accommodation, it's much more practical and equitable to discriminate on material reality: it can be declared not a gym for those who are reasonably suspected of being on testosterone in any way. That's a material reality, does effectively discriminate against Men, and allows the point of registration and entry be a controlled location (and a background check against sex offenders to be rendered).

These -- and an expectation of particular etiquette in the space -- are what create security in the space.

I think that our agreed-upon measure of individual accomodations for those who wish to guarantee a lack of exposure is sufficient to prevent any actual penis viewing, if such spaces wish to cater to a nudity-intolerant crowd. There is a ready solution and I would subsidize it's implementation in a heartbeat.

I want to be clear here: My uncle never behaved in any way that was remotely inappropriate towards me or by siblings or his children. It was a purely hypothetical situation.

Eventually, I did have to inflict pain on the person who kept assaulting me because avoidance did not work. Later, in other situations, I skipped the avoidance thing and had a personal rule was that after being told Don’t Touch Me twice, I was not holding back. One time, and this was possibly illegal of me to do but I did preemptively threaten to castrate a very large co-worker who started talking about how I had better start being nicer to him. I did not fancy finding myself in the walk in freezer with that creep. He left me alone after that. When I was young, I weighed under 100 lbs on a small frame. I was often underestimated and I took full advantage of that when I needed to. Most of the time I could avoid the creeps.

Yes, vetting would certainly offer a stronger sense of security.

The thing is, other than some gross pushback from Loren on expecting facilities meet standards (oh, the horror), I think we're broadly in agreement on near-term goals and how to accomplish them, and what those expectations can reasonably be said to be.

None of them involve "don't have a penis", and none of them justify "attack Jarhyn's niece without instantly apologizing for it profusely at the mere sight of an ID".

The fact is that if someone's preferred solution is instead to police people coming into the room on the basis of their "perceived femininity", they are asking for enforced sex essentialism.

Personally, I would rather see THAT sort asked to go piss on a tree.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

Actually I criticized your argument, on both occassions.

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?

Because I think your position is founded on immoral grounds, stuffing politics and old school nonsense into a position.

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.

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.

It definitely is.

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!

No, I think she has a better position on the subject being discussed. There is a notable difference.