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

[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.

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".

I’m not sure what you mean by ‘being there without causing harm.’

Do you think it harms children to have an adult with no relationship to any of them to simply stare at them as they play in a pool? Take a shower?

Are you familiar with how grooming works?

 

[Toni]

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.

Do you understand what grooming is?

Do you think that if I were to go to your favorite gym with unisex rooms and kept staring at you, you might become uncomfortable?

How much discomfort are you, personally, willing to tolerate?

How much Sysco gift should you be forced to tolerate?

What if you are 9 years old?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Shit. My post suddenly disappeared. Am I the only one that happens to, fairly frequently lately?

Zero deleted posts between yours and the one you are responding to. Timeout in the editor perhaps?

 

[spikepipsqueak]

I am assuming those unisex changing rooms are not cubicle based, by the looks.

Of course offenses escalate in those circumstances.

That is like smorgasbord for sex creeps of any gender. Why would any responsible government do that?

 

[TV and credit cards]

I went to my newly built credit union some thirty miles away. My emergency cash pile I keep in my secret place was running low. They had three individual restrooms. That was nice. The downside is it completely takes away something to bicker about but still, it was nice.
I think individual restrooms are the only way to go. The only remaining concerns have been loss prevention and safety. Both of which can now be mitigated by nonhuman monitoring.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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’

So this amounts to it's more important that a member of your ingroup doesn't get triggered than a member of your outgroup doesn't get killed.

 

[TomC]

So this amounts to it's more important that a member of your ingroup doesn't get triggered than a member of your outgroup doesn't get killed.

So this amounts to since males are dangerous they should be entitled to use the women's room.
Tom

 

[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.

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.

I am aware, you're actually making my point. This is a dog-didn't-bark situation.

If ID were not a sufficient barrier we would have plenty of incidents. But everything that claims incidents is stretching it--which would not happen if they had actual incidents to refer to.

 

[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".

I’m not sure what you mean by ‘being there without causing harm.’

Do you think it harms children to have an adult with no relationship to any of them to simply stare at them as they play in a pool? Take a shower?

Are you familiar with how grooming works?

Underwear gnomes.

Presence is the same thing as staring at.

 

[Jarhyn]

Do you think it harms children to have an adult with no relationship to any of them to simply stare at them as they play in a pool?

No.

Take a shower?

Wow. 0 to chomo in 60 seconds.

Then, any parent who takes their kids to a facility that allows open nudity and "strange adults" is being negligent.

Do you understand what grooming is?

Given that you're calling "watching kids play at the pool" grooming, or something like it, I not sure YOU really know what grooming is

Do you think that if I were to go to your favorite gym with unisex rooms and kept staring at you, you might become uncomfortable?

Probably, but that is not grooming, even though I expect such conduct is forbidden in the facility's code of conduct, likely under "loitering" or some other more precise restriction specific to changing areas.

How much discomfort are you, personally, willing to tolerate?

Almost infinite.

"Discomfort" is not what triggers some sort of defensive behavior, usually.

There is a vague set of actions which would trigger defensive behavior, but someone staying "over there" while they don't do anything "significant" is not one of them.

Possibly report the behavior afterwards?

If someone is 9yo, that's sex predator behavior, sure, but it's not specifically grooming.

Grooming is "targeted interactions with a party to encourage specific sexual(?) behaviors", as far as I am aware.

Looking at someone, while voyeuristic and pedophilic and gross all in its own right, is a different crime, as is putting a child in a position to BE looked at (that second one IS grooming, and arguably what the parent who allows their child to shower where strangers are allowed to sit and, ostensibly, watch, is doing).

Diluting the meaning of "grooming" has led to a carousel of conservative jackasses accusing gay people of "grooming" simply for existing around children, or for interacting with children at all.

Adding "existing legally, if grossly, in the vicinity of a child" or even "enjoying watching children participating in innocent play" as "grooming" takes that to a whole new level.

 

[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.

Do you understand what grooming is?

Do you think that if I were to go to your favorite gym with unisex rooms and kept staring at you, you might become uncomfortable?

How much discomfort are you, personally, willing to tolerate?

How much Sysco gift should you be forced to tolerate?

What if you are 9 years old?

Do you understand that allegations aren't the same as proof? And the continual use of bad data says there is no good data.

 

[Toni]

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’

So this amounts to it's more important that a member of your ingroup doesn't get triggered than a member of your outgroup doesn't get killed.

Well it’s your group who is the threat, Loren.

When will you address that?

I don’t want anyone to be triggered. I don’t want anyone to be harmed, physically or emotionally.

Doors on stalls are a pretty good solution to the triggering thing but YOU, who has no skin in this game thinks that spending money on doors is too expensive to solve an issue for a lot of women ( cis and trans) and judging by responses from more than one make poster in this thread—would make at least some men more comfortable.

Jayryn mentioned vetting by establishments and I’ve mentioned doors. I think that combination should really take care of assuring us that no bad actors will be around.

Your idea is that it’s not a problem for you, so it’s not a problem. We all just need to to be like you.

You are an unserious person.

 

[Toni]

Do you think it harms children to have an adult with no relationship to any of them to simply stare at them as they play in a pool?

No.

Take a shower?

Wow. 0 to chomo in 60 seconds.

Then, any parent who takes their kids to a facility that allows open nudity and "strange adults" is being negligent.

Do you understand what grooming is?

Given that you're calling "watching kids play at the pool" grooming, or something like it, I not sure YOU really know what grooming is

Do you think that if I were to go to your favorite gym with unisex rooms and kept staring at you, you might become uncomfortable?

Probably, but that is not grooming, even though I expect such conduct is forbidden in the facility's code of conduct, likely under "loitering" or some other more precise restriction specific to changing areas.

How much discomfort are you, personally, willing to tolerate?

Almost infinite.

"Discomfort" is not what triggers some sort of defensive behavior, usually.

There is a vague set of actions which would trigger defensive behavior, but someone staying "over there" while they don't do anything "significant" is not one of them.

Possibly report the behavior afterwards?

If someone is 9yo, that's sex predator behavior, sure, but it's not specifically grooming.

Grooming is "targeted interactions with a party to encourage specific sexual(?) behaviors", as far as I am aware.

Looking at someone, while voyeuristic and pedophilic and gross all in its own right, is a different crime, as is putting a child in a position to BE looked at (that second one IS grooming, and arguably what the parent who allows their child to shower where strangers are allowed to sit and, ostensibly, watch, is doing).

Diluting the meaning of "grooming" has led to a carousel of conservative jackasses accusing gay people of "grooming" simply for existing around children, or for interacting with children at all.

Adding "existing legally, if grossly, in the vicinity of a child" or even "enjoying watching children participating in innocent play" as "grooming" takes that to a whole new level.

There is a difference between watching kids play at a pool and staring at kids in a pool. Or staring at a particular adult orany sex or gender or orientation. I know that you know there is a difference and that sometimes staring at an individual rather than just observing them can be indicative of sexual interest.

The reason that I think that staring intently at a person can be indicative of sexual intent, welcome or welcome is that has been my experience.

Someone who’s loos at me or my kid make me uncomfortable to me mean potential danger.

This is not about gay/straight/trans/cis. It’s about some people being creepy. Of any sex, gender, orientation ration, proclivity.

Insisting that someone must tolerate without responding to someone staring at them is in fact an early step of grooming. Being told that something that makes you uncomfortable, that it’s perfectly normal and natural is a step in grooming, whether it is sexual grooming or grooming to engage in racist or anti-LGBTQIA behavior or against a member of a religious group, etc.

Staring can be used to indicate disapproval.

Staring is often used to intentionally make people feel uncomfortable.

Parents can and do send kids to swimming lessons and the kids do use showers without their parents present.

 

[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.

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".

I’m not sure what you mean by ‘being there without causing harm.’

Do you think it harms children to have an adult with no relationship to any of them to simply stare at them as they play in a pool? Take a shower?

Are you familiar with how grooming works?

Underwear gnomes.

Presence is the same thing as staring at.

??

 

[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.

I am aware, you're actually making my point. This is a dog-didn't-bark situation.

If ID were not a sufficient barrier we would have plenty of incidents. But everything that claims incidents is stretching it--which would not happen if they had actual incidents to refer to.

Bullshit.

You didn’t see it and it didn’t happen to you = did not happen.

Unless it was black man.

We know you, Loren.

 

[Tigers!]

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.

Too expensive, take up too much room </sarcasm>

 

[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?

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.

That is probably good advice in the USA but other countries do manage to hold worthwhile legislative enquiries.

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!

So you will not listen to those who claim to be transgender? Why then are you in the discussion?

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.

How many offences need to be committed before you will say there is data?

 

[Tigers!]

So this amounts to it's more important that a member of your ingroup doesn't get triggered than a member of your outgroup doesn't get killed.

So this amounts to since males are dangerous they should be entitled to use the women's room.
Tom

Why can females not be allowed to have a space all to their themselves?
I do not understand why a portion of males want to invade female's private spaces and why a larger portion of males (and some females too) think that is perfectly acceptable and should be forced upon unwilling females.

 

[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.

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

That is probably good advice in the USA but other countries do manage to hold worthwhile legislative enquiries.

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!

So you will not listen to those who claim to be transgender? Why then are you in the discussion?

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.

How many offences need to be committed before you will say there is data?

It has to happen to him or his wife or sister in law for it to matter.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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’

So this amounts to it's more important that a member of your ingroup doesn't get triggered than a member of your outgroup doesn't get killed.

Well it’s your group who is the threat, Loren.

When will you address that?

I don’t want anyone to be triggered. I don’t want anyone to be harmed, physically or emotionally.

Doors on stalls are a pretty good solution to the triggering thing but YOU, who has no skin in this game thinks that spending money on doors is too expensive to solve an issue for a lot of women ( cis and trans) and judging by responses from more than one make poster in this thread—would make at least some men more comfortable.

Jayryn mentioned vetting by establishments and I’ve mentioned doors. I think that combination should really take care of assuring us that no bad actors will be around.

Your idea is that it’s not a problem for you, so it’s not a problem. We all just need to to be like you.

You are an unserious person.

You are not addressing my point at all. Nothing in what you say addresses the trade between fear and death.

What you fail to recognize is that this is about making it impossible to exist as trans. Some of the deniers have simply not been able to answer when challenged about "so where should they go?", so the non-answer of doors has been thrown out there. It's a non-answer because it's a lot more expensive (space, not materials) than you think and won't actually protect anyone so it's not going to get implemented. It lets you pretend they aren't setting up a situation where there are no answers.