And now the totally expected Trans Bathroom laws result

[Gospel]

I mean, the statement that a few will feel threatened is a fare assessment. In fact, I'd wager that most of us would only complain if she was unattractive and belligerent. Crucify me.

I see no form of transit involved to assess a fare for.

I see no reason to complain if she's unattractive, people would complain about belligerent regardless of gender.

Ahh, I didn't say unattractive or belligerent I said unattractive & belligerent. Big difference.

Then it becomes an irrelevant qualification. Attractive and belligerent is still a problem.

I really didn't expect a long debate over this. My prejudice tells me that attractive women get away with a lot more things than unattractive women. Do you get my statement now?

 

[bigfield]

Was this even a problem before right-wing politicians and culture warriors made it out to be a problem?

Was there a systemic problem where cis-women were made uncomfortable by male-looking trans-women using their spaces?

 

[Elixir]

Was there a systemic problem where cis-women were made uncomfortable by male-looking trans-women using their spaces?

I don’t know. But I remember going into an airport restroom, finding it empty. Used a stall, washed and left. As I was leaving, two women brushed past me and into the bathroom I had just left. That struck me as odd so I turned around to discover that I had used the “ladies room”. Struck me as funny at the time. But now I’m glad that was “back then”!

 

[Politesse]

Was this even a problem before right-wing politicians and culture warriors made it out to be a problem?

Was there a systemic problem where cis-women were made uncomfortable by male-looking trans-women using their spaces?

TERFs are always happy to send you a bunch of Daily Mail articles that will make it seem like this is a common occurence. Also every trans person is a rapist, every bisexual sleeps around, every Muslim is a terrorist, and every homeless person secretly has a mansion and an nice car that they bought with their scam begging money.

 

[Jarhyn]

And I would not assume that all appropriate medical and psychiatric screenings were performed and appropriately used to determine whether someone was ‘safe.’

Except it isn't about psychiatric screenings. It's simply about "not on testosterone so not a 'man'".

That's something you validate with a urinalysis or blood screening, or simply seeing that the person has no testicles.

 

[Toni]

And I would not assume that all appropriate medical and psychiatric screenings were performed and appropriately used to determine whether someone was ‘safe.’

Except it isn't about psychiatric screenings. It's simply about "not on testosterone so not a 'man'".

That's something you validate with a urinalysis or blood screening, or simply seeing that the person has no testicles.

How would anyone know this by looking?

How would it work: a woman who was sexually assaulted encountering a naked individual with a penis, in a shower next to her?

What you are advocating is that people set aside centuries—and longer! conditioning and evidence—often personal experience- that person who definitely looks like a threat in the context of a woman’s bathroom…is fine. Because a piece of parse they submitted to…someone says they are.

I am not suggesting that transwomen are likely to be a threat.

I’m saying that it is unreasonable and potentially dangerous to expect women to just assume that all the proper things were done to ensure that person is not any kind of threat.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I mean, the statement that a few will feel threatened is a fare assessment. In fact, I'd wager that most of us would only complain if she was unattractive and belligerent. Crucify me.

I see no form of transit involved to assess a fare for.

I see no reason to complain if she's unattractive, people would complain about belligerent regardless of gender.

Ahh, I didn't say unattractive or belligerent I said unattractive & belligerent. Big difference.

Then it becomes an irrelevant qualification. Attractive and belligerent is still a problem.

I really didn't expect a long debate over this.

Clearly you haven't been posting here long enough.

 

[southernhybrid]

Was there a systemic problem where cis-women were made uncomfortable by male-looking trans-women using their spaces?

I don’t know. But I remember going into an airport restroom, finding it empty. Used a stall, washed and left. As I was leaving, two women brushed past me and into the bathroom I had just left. That struck me as odd so I turned around to discover that I had used the “ladies room”. Struck me as funny at the time. But now I’m glad that was “back then”!

I accidentally started to walk into the men's restroom in a big store a few years ago and a man who was on the way out, looked at me as if I had committed a felony. I apologized and quickly walked out. I'm an innocent looking cute little old lady and I'm not belligerent, so I doubt it was my appearance he feared. He just didn't think I belonged in the men's space. No problem. It won't happen again

I confess that I've read this entire insane thread and I really don't totally agree with a single one of you. Some of you sound very self righteous, expecting women to not have some reservations about male looking people in their private spaces. For fuck's sake, social change comes slowly and even the most progressive woman might have some negative feelings about trans females, who might have a penis, suddenly using the women's room. Try to see it from her perspective and stop accusing her of being a hater. That's what I mean by appearing self righteous. If a man didn't want a little old lady in his space, wouldn't it seem reasonable that at least some women wouldn't want a tall, partly trans female in her space?

I'm not talking about the Ruiz story, assuming it's even true. He obviously shouldn't have been beaten up. That's all that needs to be said about that.

Still, considering that the trans population is less than 2%, or even less than 1%, depending on which source you read, it's very unlikely that we need to worry about someone with a penis coming into the women's rest room. And, if that person with a penis looks female enough, who cares! I rarely bother to notice who's in the rest room. I strongly prefer the single room rest rooms and most of the places I go have them. Some are single sex and some are unisex. I just hope they are clean, but when ya gotta go, ya gotta go. I've used out houses before when I gotta go. But I digress.

As for me, if a person who appeared to be a male came into a women's rest room, I would simply say something like, " Hey bro! You're in the wrong room. The men's room is on the other side." I do not fear men. I was able to stand up to a large, asshole of a man who threatened to rape me when I was much younger and walking to my car around midnight after having meeting my sister in a bar for a drink. He backed down so quickly. I know how to stand up to a bully. I also had a back up plan as how to escape. I get it. Some women are very fearful of men being in the wrong place. As long as they aren't openly carrying a gun, or are psychopaths, like tfg, I can deal with them. Still I have empathy for the women, like my sister, who isn't able to stand up to a bully and who was raped twice in her younger years. One time it was a gang rape of teenage boys. The other time it was a stranger.

Trans people are being attacked and discriminated by the Republican Party in far worse ways, so why are so many of us caught up in this thread when by now, it's obvious that nobody is going to change their mind and some are making rather mean assumptions about others. Now I'm ashamed that I spent this much time here. I promised myself I wouldn't come back to this thread, but I had no self discipline and perhaps too much time on my hands, so here I am....

Anyway, if a person, regardless of gender has a penis, they can usually find a safe place to pee. I learned that from my two little male friends when I was about 5. Sorry. I can't take this thread too seriously because it you start at the beginning and read the entire thing, it really does look like little children throwing insults at each other. And, now I'm one too, since I added a post. Dog forgive me.

Oh no. I just read Toni's last post. I've never showered next to anyone, so I guess I don't understand that fear. I would think if there was a trans female who still had a penis, on a women's team, the other team members would know and they wouldn't be fearful. But then, what do I know. I don't even remember showering near the other girls when I was in high school. Are we all making too big of an issue out of this?

I think Gospel knows best and I'm not even a Christian.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And I would not assume that all appropriate medical and psychiatric screenings were performed and appropriately used to determine whether someone was ‘safe.’

Except it isn't about psychiatric screenings. It's simply about "not on testosterone so not a 'man'".

That's something you validate with a urinalysis or blood screening, or simply seeing that the person has no testicles.

And I would not assume that all appropriate medical and psychiatric screenings were performed and appropriately used to determine whether someone was ‘safe.’

Except it isn't about psychiatric screenings. It's simply about "not on testosterone so not a 'man'".

That's something you validate with a urinalysis or blood screening, or simply seeing that the person has no testicles.

How would anyone know this by looking?

How would it work: a woman who was sexually assaulted encountering a naked individual with a penis, in a shower next to her?

What you are advocating is that people set aside centuries—and longer! conditioning and evidence—often personal experience- that person who definitely looks like a threat in the context of a woman’s bathroom…is fine. Because a piece of parse they submitted to…someone says they are.

I am not suggesting that transwomen are likely to be a threat.

I’m saying that it is unreasonable and potentially dangerous to expect women to just assume that all the proper things were done to ensure that person is not any kind of threat.

Can we agree to disagree here? I'm sure RayJ cculd create a script using AI to modify these two posts and repeat them for several more pages, without any additional effort being put forth by the posters. Jarhyn thinks they have a solution, Toni thinks it is impossible to actually confirm on the fly while naked in the shower. Do we really need to repeat this for several more pages? Jarhyn is correct that this is a way to determine testosterone levels in a person. Toni is right that without branding the person, it is not easily apparent in a shower.

 

[Jarhyn]

And I would not assume that all appropriate medical and psychiatric screenings were performed and appropriately used to determine whether someone was ‘safe.’

Except it isn't about psychiatric screenings. It's simply about "not on testosterone so not a 'man'".

That's something you validate with a urinalysis or blood screening, or simply seeing that the person has no testicles.

How would anyone know this by looking?

How would it work: a woman who was sexually assaulted encountering a naked individual with a penis, in a shower next to her?

What you are advocating is that people set aside centuries—and longer! conditioning and evidence—often personal experience- that person who definitely looks like a threat in the context of a woman’s bathroom…is fine. Because a piece of parse they submitted to…someone says they are.

I am not suggesting that transwomen are likely to be a threat.

I’m saying that it is unreasonable and potentially dangerous to expect women to just assume that all the proper things were done to ensure that person is not any kind of threat.

They would know this by looking at the human with the ID card who was let in at the front door by the door person and knowing that they were let in by the door person.

People who have been assaulted by (insert proxy here) have no right to be free of the proxy.

There is nothing "someone says" going on here.

The point is to get the membership, you have to have gotten rid of the testosterone in a way that can be validated.

I am asking people set aside the idea of "looks like" and settle on "whether or not they decided to actually be".

There is a reasonable due diligence being done in the narrow case described, and you blithely look past it so you can say "EEK! A penis!"

Granted if you are seeing a penis OR a vagina in a bathroom, something is already sus.

It is not unreasonable to assume at a gate controlled facility that anyone past the gate is authorized to be past the gate. That's how gate control works and why it is done in the first place.

When the person has already BEEN carded to validate that they don't have nuts, it's absolutely possible to understand they don't have nuts... The situation is only germane in the narrow situation described, and only produces situations in a narrow window wherein the solution is not to reject the model, but to demand that those who won't provide the third option or gated access to provide the third option or gate access.

 

[Toni]

What Jimmy Higgins wrote.

 

[Politesse]

Are we all making too big of an issue out of this?

Well, as the "**** Woke *****" of the thread, I suppose I'm not the one to comment. But for the record, no, I don't think we're making too much of an issue of this. The Republican party is spending billions of dollars this cycle trying to systematically target trans people for legal discrimination on as many fronts as possible. More than 500 new pieces of anti-trans legislation since January, and the year isn't over yet. Mostly aimed at marginal, seemingly rare situations much like this one. Kids in bathrooms, kids on sports teams, a mugging in this city or that, the local library's story hour. Vaguely sympathetic stories that make you feel just a little bit more scared of the supposed enemies hiding in our midst. Having won Roe, they need a new issue with which to scare or guilt suburban Christian women into voting for far-right candidates, and have invented hysteria over terrifying trans rapists and groomers to serve that end. We're fighting an illegal proxy war, climate change is ripping our country to shreds at every shoreline, the government is intentionally putting Americans out in an unsuccessful bid to slow inflation, but are we making hundreds of new laws about any of those things? Of course not. The only thing worth the investment of the entire Republican political machine is, apparently, making sure trans teenagers just know how much their government hates them.

How can you "make too big of an issue" of something that's already a big issue, arguably the domestic political issue of the year in quantifiable terms like time and capital investment? It's Loving Day today, the anniversary of the abolition of anti-miscegnation laws. And of course Pride month this all this month. What a weird strange holiday we've invented, with every other Democrat you meet waving the rainbow flag at their local parade but wondering aloud whether assaults on trans people, their bodies and their rights, are "really that big of a deal". Yes. Yes it most certainly is. If it somehow wasn't, it is now.

And of course my own position is that stripping anyone of the protections of the 14th amendment constitutes an assault on the rule of law and the rights of the citizen generally. If you let these people start making exceptions to the equal protection of the law, they will not stop at just attacking trans people. The very idea that they will stop at persecuting only the most vulnerable members of society and never take aim at other targets seems absurd to me, but even if that were so, I could never condone it. It's just not in me.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But to get back to this particular case: The trans man was directed to the women’s rest room, very improperly. He should never have had to do this. I cannot overstate how wrong I think it was to force him to use a different restroom than the one that confirmed to his appearance.

But you're the one who did it--saying no penises in the women's gets you all the vaginas even if they're attached to someone very masculine in appearance.

 

[Gospel]

But to get back to this particular case: The trans man was directed to the women’s rest room, very improperly. He should never have had to do this. I cannot overstate how wrong I think it was to force him to use a different restroom than the one that confirmed to his appearance.

But you're the one who did it--saying no penises in the women's gets you all the vaginas even if they're attached to someone very masculine in appearance.

Can you quote the part where Toni "did it"? I find myself quite taken aback by such an assertion. So much in fact I tried finding it myself to no avail.

 

[southernhybrid]

Are we all making too big of an issue out of this?

Well, as the "crazy woke bitch" of the thread, I suppose I'm not the one to comment. But for the record, no, I don't think we're making too much of an issue of this. The Republican party is spending billions of dollars this cycle trying to systematically target trans people for discrimination on as many fronts as possible. More than 500 new pieces of anti-trans leguslation since January, and the year isn't over yet. Mosty aimed at marginal seemingly rare situatons much like this one. Having won Roe, they need a new issue with which to scare or guilt suburban women into voting for far-right candidates, and invented hysteria over terrifying trans rapists and groomers. We're fighting an illegal proxy war, climate change is ripping our country to shreds at every shoreline, the government is intentionally puttng Americans out in an unsuccessful bid to slow inflation, but are we making hundreds of new laws about any of those things? Of course not. The only thing worth the investment of the entire Republican political nachine is, apparently, making sure trans teenagers just know how much their government hates them.

How can you "make too big of an issue" of something that's already a big issue, arguably the domestic political issue of the year in quantifiable terms like time and capital investment? It's Pride month this month, and what a weird and distressing one, with every other Democrat you meet waving the rainbow flag at their local parade but wondering aloud whether assaults on trans people, their bodies and their rights, are "really that big of a deal". Yes. Yes it most certainly is. If it somehow wasn't, it is now.

And of course my own position is that stripping anyone of the protections of the 14th amendment constitutes an assault on the rule of law and the rights of the citizen generally. If you let these people start making exceptions to the equal protection of the law, they will not stop at just attacking trans people. The very idea that they will stop at persecuting only the most vulnerable members of society and never rake aim at bigger targets seems abaurx to me, but even if that were so, I could never condone it. It's just not in me.

But believing that is what makes me a hateful radical...

Your problem, imo, is that you are grossly exaggerating what people think and are saying. It reminds me of atheists who don't realize that most liberal believers are our allies. Instead they get hung up on some minor things or they judge them harshly due to their love and appreciation of some of the myths. Btw, I don't think you're a hateful radical, another exaggeration.

You appear to be doing the same thing, judging a few women who are struggling to totally accept and/understand this new aspect of social life. Fuck. If we were lower primates of the same species, we wouldn't hate anyone who was different, or care if a male with a penis entered the vicinity of a group of females, as long as his intentions were good. But, I digress and we're humans, a very crazy, harmful species at times.

Self awareness is a difficult trait for any of us to maintain. I'm not siding with anyone in this ridiculous thread that is going nowhere. But, since you responded to me, I thought I'd at least let you know how you come across at times. If you want to make progress, you don't insult your allies, but you can't expect your allies to see things from the exact same perspective as you. I've said I have no problem with restrooms and the chance of a trans person coming into one I use is unlikely. I've only met one trans female in all my years in Georgia. I have no idea if she had a penis, but she was feminine enough for her to feel comfortable in the Women's Room. That was about 15 years ago. I like the room restrooms because I like my privacy. It has nothing to do with being fearful. If I have to share a restroom, so be it. There are far worse things in life.

Worry about your enemies. They are the ones who will harm you. Don't expect perfection. it doesn't exist. Think of all the minorities that have gone on before you. Their activism didn't include demonizing their allies. You want things to be better. So do I. I try to educate Christian friends who have a somewhat liberal outlook on life on why it's perfectly natural and acceptable to be gay or trans. They are harmless but their views are likely a lot more regressive compared to a couple of the people here. It's all new to them. They don't understand.

Be an activist with goals that are reasonable instead of making misogynous attacks on females who are on your side and are trying to understand. Get out the vote among people who won't vote Republican. The Republicans are your enemies, while there are some feminists who may have a few questions or concerns about trans women. I have no hard feelings towards you. I just felt you weren't even trying to understand the position that some cis females hold.

I was also using humor because I thought this thread was so crazy, people repeating the same things over and over again. I wanted to point it out. I read it after it had been going for many days and it was like children throwing insults at each other. And, now I'm one of them. Take that!

 

[Politesse]

You appear to be doing the same thing, judging a few women who are struggling to totally accept and/understand this new aspect of social life.

I do not care whether you or anyone else is perfect or not. You can "struggle to accept" whoever you like, in the privacy of your own mind. But that is not the game that we are currently playing, as a nation. This conflict creates very real casualties every day. You compare the matter to religious belief, but firstly this is not a question of religious belief, and secondly, if someone were responding to real life cases of anti-atheist violence with hemming and hawing and "well both sides have a point though don't they? Wasn't the atheist sort of asking for it by being so strident?" I would be no less critical of their ambivalence and unwillingness to choose a side in what would be in that case a very clear cut and obvious situation of our collective civil rights being challenged.

I just felt you weren't even trying to understand the position that some cis females hold.

You realize you could say this about any issue about which two people disagree, right? I understand why women fear sexual assault. Of course I do. Sadly, I know too many women who have been victimized by men, and of course I been a victim of physical assault myself many times in my life though for different reasons. Well, mostly different reasons. In any case, if the issue is whether or not sexual assault should be illegal, my position on that is very clear. Regardless of context, sexual assault must be illegal. But I do not believe for a second that targeting trans women for assault (or looking the other way, or sympathizing with them but demanding that the criminal who assaulted them must receive equal amounts of sympathy, or "just asking questions" equivocating about whether the victims of assault were sometimes at fault or lying about what happened to them, etc, etc) is somehow making any women safer. I do not think feeding anti-trans hysteria has made any woman in any place the slightest bit safer. Far from it. They are ignoring the wolf to go after the goat.

As for "humor", I see none in this situation, and that is unlikely to change. This is rape and assault we're talking about, not airplane food or workplace schadenfreude.

 

[Toni]

But to get back to this particular case: The trans man was directed to the women’s rest room, very improperly. He should never have had to do this. I cannot overstate how wrong I think it was to force him to use a different restroom than the one that confirmed to his appearance.

But you're the one who did it--saying no penises in the women's gets you all the vaginas even if they're attached to someone very masculine in appearance.

Absolutely false and contradicted by what I have said. AFAIK, Cruiz has a penis. In any case, his genitals would not be on display in a women’s restroom.

 

[Toni]

You appear to be doing the same thing, judging a few women who are struggling to totally accept and/understand this new aspect of social life.

I do not care whether you or anyone else is perfect or not. You can "struggle to accept" whoever you like, in the privacy of your own mind. But that is not the game that we are currently playing, as a nation. This conflict creates very real casualties every day. You compare the matter to religious belief, but firstly this is not a question of religious belief, and secondly, if someone were responding to real life cases of anti-atheist violence with hemming and hawing and "well both sides have a point though don't they? Wasn't the atheist sort of asking for it by being so strident?" I would be no less critical of their ambivalence and unwillingness to choose a side in what would be in that case a very clear cut and obvious situation of our collective civil rights being challenged.

I just felt you weren't even trying to understand the position that some cis females hold.

You realize you could say this about any issue about which two people disagree, right? I understand why women fear sexual assault. Of course I do. Sadly, I know too many women who have been victimized by men, and of course I been a victim of physical assault myself many times in my life though for different reasons. Well, mostly different reasons. In any case, if the issue is whether or not sexual assault should be illegal, my position on that is very clear. Regardless of context, sexual assault must be illegal. But I do not believe for a second that targeting trans women for assault (or looking the other way, or sympathizing with them but demanding that the criminal who assaulted them must receive equal amounts of sympathy, or "just asking questions" equivocating about whether the victims of assault were sometimes at fault or lying about what happened to them, etc, etc) is somehow making any women safer. I do not think feeding anti-trans hysteria has made any woman in any place the slightest bit safer. Far from it. They are ignoring the wolf to go after the goat.

As for "humor", I see none in this situation, and that is unlikely to change. This is rape and assault we're talking about, not airplane food or workplace schadenfreude.

1. I do not think that cis women reacting in alarm to apparent males in a women’s only space is transphobic.

2. I DO think that a lot of transphobia is attached to the issues surrounding trans rights.

I also think there’s a lot of misogyny attached.

What I am observing in this thread is that those who say they are advocating for trans rights expect women to just shut up and accept whatever some male (cis, trans, former, current)person tells them they must accept. Those who object are called nasty names.

No one—except me_seems to say that the root cause is violence, usually male violence.
That is not something that men are willing to deal with.

 

[Emily Lake]

The article indicates that Ruiz ACCEPTS his part in the struggle that would end up happening, there was a loud argument and shouting (probably because no one had any right to question Ruiz's actions).

Now, there's some serious confirmation bias.
If a burly bearded dude shows up in the women's room and tells the other occupants, "Fuck off. The state of Ohio says I gotta use this bathroom." there's probably going to be trouble.

Of course, I don't know that anything like that happened. I'm pointing out that there's probably more to this than meets the eye. And I don't trust the sources to be accurate and complete.
Tom

When the "burly bearded dude" is a female, it's going to make it more complicated.

 

[Emily Lake]

You're still not addressing the issue. What's supposed to happen tomorrow? Refitting the bathrooms won't happen by then.

What could happen tomorrow is we could change the rules to:

1: Anyone can use the men's room.
2: Anyone who's biologically female can use the women's room.
3: Anyone who's biologically female gets a vote on what the criteria are for which biological males can also use the women's room.

I'm on board with this.

Make the men's rooms the "open" rooms, and the women's room the exclusively female room.

And let's not forget some basic common fucking sense: If a transgender person passes sufficiently, nobody is going to challenge them. That's the reality, that's the easiest and most reasonable solution. That pretty much means that MOST transwomen are going to end up using the men's room, because MOST of them don't pass as women. I'm sorry, but it's the truth. It also means that MOST transmen are also going to use the men's room, because it's waaaaay easier for a female to pass as a man when they take testosterone than the other way around. Testosterone is a one-way street in terms of physiological impacts to the human body.

But it also means that if she left her top on, Elliot Page would be just fine in the women's restroom, because even with the mastectomy, she still looks female. On the other hand... Laverne Cox could probably use the women's room too.

It's an altogether different matter when it comes to showers and locker rooms where most people are going to be naked. That's where some actual fucking sense and consideration come into play. If you're a transwoman with a dick, who otherwise passes well, then you get a choice of either being naked in the men's showers, or you keep it covered in the women's so nobody ever knows you're a male.

It really doesn't seem like it needs to be this complicated. Some basic consideration and an acknowledgement that a chick with a dick DOES NOT PASS is all it takes.