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

[Emily Lake]

View attachment 54557

In all fairness to Jimmy, Trump Personhood is still an unsettled question.

I'm relatively certain that Trump is a person. I doubt he's an alien masquerading as a human being. He is not, however, particularly personable.

 

[laughing dog]

And what are the alternatives in your view if transwomen are permitted in those spaces?

Again... for your consideration... what's the problem with stopping to have a deep conversation with a strange man in a dark parking garage when a woman is there all alone? Especially since men are permitted there, right?

The alternative, in my mind, is to NOT permit males of any sort into female intimate spaces. Then we don't have to take the risk at all, and we aren't expected to strike up a get-to-know-you chat with someone who very well might be up to no good.

That is literally non-responsive to my question.

Your question presupposes that women should be expected to have our rights overridden by the desire of some men to be affirmed and validated as something they categorically are not.

The actual alternative in my view is that a whole lot of women will end up being excluded from full participation in society. When the female single-sex space becomes a mixed-sex space, a lot of women will stop using them.

No, my question was a hypothetical. It presupposed nothing of the sort. I expect that sometime in the future (maybe not in my lifetime or your lifetime), transgendered people will be accepted into such spaces because people in society will have adapted (willingly or not) without losing that "full participation" in society

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No. I asked how other women are to discern whether a person belongs in a women's only space or does not belong in a women's only space. Frankly, for the most part, women's bathrooms are not much of an issue unless someone decides to be deliberately offensive. More concerning are gyms: locker rooms/showers. There it is more immediately obvious if someone has a penis or not. And if that someone has a penis, the first conclusion most women will make is that this is a person who should not be in here. They may be dangerous.

This of course may be entirely untrue. I agree with that.

We have no even claimed cases of attacks in locker rooms by those who pretend to be trans. The risk looks an awful lot like zero.

BUT: Trans people do not come with the word TRANS tattooed across their foreheads. Nor should they. They should just be able to exist.

What I have been trying to explain is that IN THAT MOMENT women need something to indicate that the person before them with an exposed naked penis is actually a woman who does indeed belong there. I'm really certain transwomen do not want to frighten anyone or be screamed at or excluded or to have to present an entire discourse on Why I Belong. Who would? I'm sure that they just want to be comfortable and safe and accepted, as does everyone else. They are, after all, just people. Just like the rest of us.

Is it flaccid? If so, very unlikely they're attacking.

But women cannot read minds. Not cis women. Not trans women. Not anybody, frankly. "Creepdar" is not infallible. So, because there is not a perfect or nearly perfect way to determine if that person is a trans woman or a dangerous person: doors on individual stalls, including shower stalls and dressing rooms. Universal.

Attempts to get perfect security fail.

And what you're actually doing is providing privacy for an attacker to approach.

Which is why I have NEVER suggested barring trans individuals from the facilities they prefer to use and have ALWAYS said: doors on stalls, including individual shower stalls/dressing areas. To give everyone the privacy they prefer or require and to protect ALL women. You know that I mean trans and cis, right? Because I've written that enough times that everyone should KNOW that's what I mean.

The problem is that you are after protection that doesn't actually work.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

1) I get very suspicious of any data that comes from a legislative inquiry.

2) Notably absent from this is whether the offenses occurred before or after becoming transgender.

3) Notably absent from this is whether there is evidence of being transgender before incarceration. I am not going to accept someone's word on this in a prison situation!

4) This actually makes the reverse point--they are having to stretch to find data, which says that in the general case they have no data.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

1) Varies by state. Some try to say The Felon isn't a rapist because his effectively admitted actions did not qualify as rape in the state where it happened.

2) What bearing does this have on the situation?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Applies in restrooms--but restrooms generally have stall doors.

Doesn't work in most locker rooms.

And note that sometimes cis-women sometimes do not pass.

 

[Toni]

No. I asked how other women are to discern whether a person belongs in a women's only space or does not belong in a women's only space. Frankly, for the most part, women's bathrooms are not much of an issue unless someone decides to be deliberately offensive. More concerning are gyms: locker rooms/showers. There it is more immediately obvious if someone has a penis or not. And if that someone has a penis, the first conclusion most women will make is that this is a person who should not be in here. They may be dangerous.

This of course may be entirely untrue. I agree with that.

We have no even claimed cases of attacks in locker rooms by those who pretend to be trans. The risk looks an awful lot like zero.

BUT: Trans people do not come with the word TRANS tattooed across their foreheads. Nor should they. They should just be able to exist.

What I have been trying to explain is that IN THAT MOMENT women need something to indicate that the person before them with an exposed naked penis is actually a woman who does indeed belong there. I'm really certain transwomen do not want to frighten anyone or be screamed at or excluded or to have to present an entire discourse on Why I Belong. Who would? I'm sure that they just want to be comfortable and safe and accepted, as does everyone else. They are, after all, just people. Just like the rest of us.

Is it flaccid? If so, very unlikely they're attacking.

But women cannot read minds. Not cis women. Not trans women. Not anybody, frankly. "Creepdar" is not infallible. So, because there is not a perfect or nearly perfect way to determine if that person is a trans woman or a dangerous person: doors on individual stalls, including shower stalls and dressing rooms. Universal.

Attempts to get perfect security fail.

And what you're actually doing is providing privacy for an attacker to approach.

Which is why I have NEVER suggested barring trans individuals from the facilities they prefer to use and have ALWAYS said: doors on stalls, including individual shower stalls/dressing areas. To give everyone the privacy they prefer or require and to protect ALL women. You know that I mean trans and cis, right? Because I've written that enough times that everyone should KNOW that's what I mean.

The problem is that you are after protection that doesn't actually work.

Sigh. I have not suggested that transwomen are actually likely to threaten or attack customers women in a locker room. That is not the issue.

The issue—if you ever bothered to read instead of just reflexively ‘responding’ is that cus women and girls will likely have difficulty recognizing trans women who have retained a penis in a shower or dressing room as a woman. The visceral reaction will be that this is a make who is a women only space and that means he’s likely to be a threat.

Not because it’s a trans woman but because IN THE MOMENT, other women may have a reflexive reaction to a perceived danger.

Stalls with doors in shower rooms and dressing rooms would greatly reduce the risk of any woman or girl—cis or trans—being traumatized.

I know you don’t care about such things but I do t care what you ‘think’

 

[Toni]

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.

Applies in restrooms--but restrooms generally have stall doors.

Doesn't work in most locker rooms.

And note that sometimes cis-women sometimes do not pass.

Doors, Loren. doors on individual stalls/changing rooms and showers.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

If they are masturbating you clearly are not aware of them. So how do you know it actually happened and it's not staged?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

You still haven't demonstrated that ID is not a sufficient barrier.

 

[Toni]

And what are the alternatives in your view if transwomen are permitted in those spaces?

Again... for your consideration... what's the problem with stopping to have a deep conversation with a strange man in a dark parking garage when a woman is there all alone? Especially since men are permitted there, right?

The alternative, in my mind, is to NOT permit males of any sort into female intimate spaces. Then we don't have to take the risk at all, and we aren't expected to strike up a get-to-know-you chat with someone who very well might be up to no good.

That is literally non-responsive to my question.

Your question presupposes that women should be expected to have our rights overridden by the desire of some men to be affirmed and validated as something they categorically are not.

The actual alternative in my view is that a whole lot of women will end up being excluded from full participation in society. When the female single-sex space becomes a mixed-sex space, a lot of women will stop using them.

No, my question was a hypothetical. It presupposed nothing of the sort. I expect that sometime in the future (maybe not in my lifetime or your lifetime), transgendered people will be accepted into such spaces because people in society will have adapted (willingly or not) without losing that "full participation" in society

I think you might look at it differently if you were a woman. Or Trans. The current administration is seeking to severely limit the rights of women and of trans individuals, using Project 2025 as a template: https://democracywatchusa.com/resources/Reading/Project-2025-Summary.pdf

Women and trans people are under attack. So is anyone who is not straight cis white and male. You don't see it quite the same way because you are straight, white, cis and male. It's not hurting you. Yet.

In theory, I have zero issue accepting trans women into women's only spaces. Again, I will re-iterate that my concern is the visceral reaction that girls and women have to seeing an unexpected male body in a women/girl only space. It creates a bad atmosphere for all of the women and girls, including trans people.

I would like to point out again just how poorly men in general react to anyone that does not sufficiently meet their 'standards' for masculinity making it difficult for LGBTQIA+ males to exist in male only spaces, and in fact, dangerous to do so. Men have a lot of work to do learning about accepting others. Instead of focusing on that, they seek to do what they like to do best: Tell women what they MUST endure. Gaslight women telling them that their fears are just bigotry.

Men are known to be dangerous to other men and to women, but women are expected by men to accept male bodies in women's only spaces and at least some men complain that doors are too expensive and impractical. Because they don't need them or want them.

 

[Toni]

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.

You still haven't demonstrated that ID is not a sufficient barrier.

You haven't demonstrated that ID IS a sufficient barrier.

Emily has actually done the work that of course you could not bother to do or to even read hers to know that in many states, anyone can walk into their DMV and request a new license with a newly designated sex without anything other than: they want it.

If you're going to be a misogynist bigot, at least put some effort into it. No one here is going to take your word for anything.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

"she had her penis in her hand"

A lot of people who are seriously mentally ill or in a mental health crisis masturbate in front of others. This makes her no different than many other people who are suffering from severe mental illness/crisis.

It's a he, not a her.

That would be "This makes he no different than many other people who are suffering from severe mental illness/crisis.". Is that West Hollywood dialect?

Do "It's" get a pronoun? "It's" are things, not people.

Prescriptivists. Q: "Who's that at the door?" A: "It's the pizza delivery guy."

Bigotry... we can try to cover it up with poor grammar analysis.

It puts the lotion on its skin or it gets the hose again.
It is a he.

v.

It's the pizza delivery guy.

It's just grammar, it's just grammar.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Why should women have to put up with this in their locker rooms etc.

A transgender woman who masturbated in front of shocked staff at a hospital has been locked up.
Former soldier Paula Stanton, aged 62, of Severn Avenue, Barry committed the sex act at the University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff. The Falklands War veteran had been taken there by ambulance for a mental health assessment over concerns over a threat to self-harm.
Lewis Ball, prosecuting, said: “The defendant put her hands down her leggings to the groin area. Staff could see that she had her penis in her hand and that her hand was moving up and down. This was happening on and off."

News

"she had her penis in her hand"

A lot of people who are seriously mentally ill or in a mental health crisis masturbate in front of others. This makes her no different than many other people who are suffering from severe mental illness/crisis.

Hilarious. You are as delusional as the reporter.

Says the atheist who claimed America has a divine right. Says the "science supporter' who claims anthropogenic climate change isn't real.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Why in the world were masturbaters ever tolerated?

 

[Toni]

O

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.

Why in the world were masturbaters ever tolerated?

Our policy wa that we assumed callers needed someone to talk to and we should never gang up because it could take some people a long time or many phone calls to feel comfortable enough to be ready to disclose what was really bothering them.

One frequent masterbator was a teenager from a nearby small town. He was obviously a horny teenaged boy but also lonely and isolated. Sometimes, he’d open up a bit about that.

Also, the men did not see the problem until they were on the receiving end.

As is quite often the case.

 

[TSwizzle]

A judge has ruled that prison guidance which allows some transgender prisoners to be held in jails matching their gender identity, rather than their sex at birth, is unlawful.

BBC

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Let me get this straight, just so we're crystal fucking clear.

You believe that a full grown adult male of the human species, with a sex offender record for serious offenses, should be allowed by law to go into the female showers and changing rooms at the local community pool and watch little girls change. And the girls and their parents should have no say about that at all... as long as he doesn't actually get his dick out.

Do you not see any potential problems with that?

The devil is in the details.

What exactly "sex offenses" were committed? Was there an actual attack, or is the "sex offense" simply being there without causing harm? There is enough distortion by the anti-trans crowd that I suspect the latter.

It's like that UK "study" that lumped everything from eyes lingering too long (something unprovable) up through rape in counting "offenses".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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".

You know that literally nobody in this thread would tolerate your niece being attacked, irrespective of whether your niece is male or female. You do know that, right?

The problem with this is you favor a policy that has resulted in such attacks.

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.

You do know that humans are really, really, really good at determining the actual real sex of other non-juvenile humans, don't you? It's not like it's some mystery. It's not like we're all standing around saying "oh, that person has long hair, I bet they can gestate babies even though they're shaped like an inverted triangle, with a waist below their belly button, shoulders like a linebacker, a square jaw, heavy brow, and lots of lush body hair!" If a female-women puts on tennis shoes and jeans, she's not suddenly mistaken for one of the guys.

We can almost always tell other people's sex. You know we can tell. They know we can tell. You know that we know. We know that you know. We know that you know we know.

I'm not going to play this game of commenting on how elaborate and ground-breaking the emperor's outfit is and pretending his bare ass isn't hanging out.

You think you can tell. SIL has had multiple incidents with this, women who think she's not female.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How? Any time your own clothing is disordered or removed, and you are vulnerable, you are in a private space with a lock on it.

Any time someone else's genitals are legitimately exposed, they are too.

The financial argument doesn't wash. With cubicles, every toilet, shower or change room becomes a unisex. Cheaper than providing 2 distinct areas.

For consideration...

Unisex changing rooms put women at danger of sexual assault, data reveals

The vast majority of reported sexual assaults at public swimming pools in the UK take place in unisex changing rooms, new statistics reveal.

www.the-independent.com

Mixed-gender changing rooms becoming a 'magnet' for sexual predators, according to new report | LBC

80 sexual assaults, 16 rapes and 65 incidents of voyeurism took place in leisure centres in 2023 – many of them in mixed-gender changing areas.

www.lbc.co.uk

Voyeurism concerns at Stevenage pool's mixed changing rooms

A police officer suggests plans to retain mixed facilities at a leisure centre be reconsidered.

www.bbc.com

Considering....nope, garbage.

The data, obtained through a Freedom of Information request by the Sunday Times, suggests that unisex changing rooms are more dangerous for women and girls than single-sex facilities.

Just under 90 per cent of complaints regarding changing room sexual assaults, voyeurism and harassment are about incidents in unisex facilities.

Keywords "complaints" and "voyeurism". This treats a rape and a claim of someone looking too much the same. Standard dirty statistics trick.

Police data obtained by the Women’s Rights Network (WRN) showed that 80 sexual assaults, 16 rapes and 65 incidents of voyeurism took place in leisure centres in 2023 – many of them in mixed-gender changing areas.

Again, lumping.

Police have raised "substantive concerns" about the potential of voyeurism taking place in the mixed changing rooms of a proposed swimming pool.

Doesn't say anything actually happened.

Keeping trotting out the same bad data provides a considerable indication that there is no good data.