Gender Roles

[Bomb#20]

The difference here is that black women are women. Transwomen are male. You're arguing that males are like black women, and that males are disadvantaged because women don't want to relinquish our boundaries and let males into our sex-specific spaces and services.

And what are you going to do when the transmen show up in the women's room?

The popular notion that providing single-sex spaces for women means we must also provide single-sex places for men is a case of valuing symbolic fairness above real fairness, much like trying to stand up for freedom by prohibiting burning American flags.

Either people use the bathroom corresponding to their birth anatomy or they use the bathroom corresponding to their current presentation. It makes no sense to treat them differently.

Why not? In the first place, male monkeys have spent the last thirty million years giving female monkeys good reason to fear us; the reverse is not the case. Our congenital brain wiring has taken the hint. Men who tell women "Just get over it." deserve a "Just get stuffed.". And in the second place, what exactly do you mean by "their current presentation", attempted presentation or actual presentation? Going by Jokodo's "Go where you cause the least fuss" dictum, it makes perfect sense for transmen to use the men's room and for transwomen not to use the women's room -- women trying to look male are much more likely to appear male to men than men trying to look female are to appear female to women. And the last thirty million years of monkey evolution gave us good reason for that too.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I brought it up because you were claiming I support discrimination. I support equality of opportunity. Society used to be unequal, now it's unequal in the other direction.

Equality of opportunity for males to have access to naked or vulnerable females without their consent?

You still haven't provided any indication that it actually happens.

Nurses suing their employer for allowing trans women to use their changing rooms

A group of NHS employees in Darlington say they are made to feel unsafe by a male staff member who identifies as a woman and after raising concerns their manager was called in by HR and told they needed to be "re-educated". A transgender charity says people need to be more accepting.

news.sky.com

More details are here. Sorry it's a Daily Fail article, but when nobody else is willing to actually quote the nurses' specific allegations, what are you going to do?

Look harder? Research better?

The Daily Mail's website is an STD on the Internet.

The religious organization backing them is political.

"The Trust has put transgender ideology before the rights of the nurses."

That is a peculiar argument to make, especially when it is being alleged that the person is effectively a male, not even transgender. That this isn't even about transgender rights, but allegedly about a guy who is violating women's spaces.

 

[Bomb#20]

Equality of opportunity for males to have access to naked or vulnerable females without their consent?

You still haven't provided any indication that it actually happens.

Nurses suing their employer for allowing trans women to use their changing rooms

A group of NHS employees in Darlington say they are made to feel unsafe by a male staff member who identifies as a woman and after raising concerns their manager was called in by HR and told they needed to be "re-educated". A transgender charity says people need to be more accepting.

news.sky.com

More details are here. Sorry it's a Daily Fail article, but when nobody else is willing to actually quote the nurses' specific allegations, what are you going to do?

Look harder? Research better?

The Daily Mail's website is an STD on the Internet.

Yeah, and? You might as well say the Clinton campaign should have gotten away with rigging the primary against Sanders because the guy who revealed it is a scumbag. The Daily Mail's deservedly poor reputation is why I included the Sky link as well, so readers would know this is a real lawsuit and wouldn't claim the DM made it all up.

As far as looking harder and researching better go, what the heck are you on about? Did you even read all four links? Yours pretty much repeat the meager details in the Sky article. "However, as the allegations are now also subject to active legal action, it would not be appropriate for the Trust to comment further at this stage.", says your link, and apparently the entire British mainstream press thinks it would likewise not be appropriate for the press to comment further at this stage about what the allegations even are. After I'd plowed through a dozen-odd sites like those (including your Northern Echo link) that weren't willing to be more specific about what the nurses said the guy did than “taken a keen interest”, I gritted my teeth and included the Daily Mail link.

The religious organization backing them is political.

"The Trust has put transgender ideology before the rights of the nurses."

That is a peculiar argument to make, especially when it is being alleged that the person is effectively a male, not even transgender. That this isn't even about transgender rights, but allegedly about a guy who is violating women's spaces.

In the first place, the reason HR is letting the male nurse get away with this behavior and telling the female nurses they need to be reeducated is HR's submission to transgender ideology. Arguing "That doesn't count because the guy isn't really transgender" is adding insult to injury to the victims when making any administrative inquiry into the sincerity of someone's claim to be transgender is verboten for ideological reasons.

And in the second place, the guy identifies as female and goes by "Rose", and according to the female nurses he said he'd been on female hormones but had gone off them because he was trying to get his girlfriend pregnant. We can all make our own judgments about whether that counts as Rose even being transgender, but we can depend on it that anybody who argues you have to keep taking the hormones and not try to father a child to qualify as a transwoman will get accused of transphobia.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The religious organization backing them is political.

"The Trust has put transgender ideology before the rights of the nurses."

That is a peculiar argument to make, especially when it is being alleged that the person is effectively a male, not even transgender. That this isn't even about transgender rights, but allegedly about a guy who is violating women's spaces.

In the first place, the reason HR is letting the male nurse get away with this behavior and telling the female nurses they need to be reeducated is HR's submission to transgender ideology.

Well, I get that you believe that. If HR is allowing a person to endanger and create privacy problems in locker rooms, that isn't submitting to transgender ideology, that is negligence.

Arguing "That doesn't count because the guy isn't really transgender" is adding insult to injury to the victims when making any administrative inquiry into the sincerity of someone's claim to be transgender is verboten for ideological reasons.

There are two issues, one regarding what to do with transgenders, and one regarding safety of women. This appears to be the later, not the former. If the guy isn't even transgender, it isn't a No True Scotsman issue to raise that point. And for a bonus, since when does a potential bad actor lead us to through an entire thing out into the garbage bin? If the person a was lesbian and had the same behavior, are we kicking lesbians out of women's spaces too? Or gay males out of men's spaces?

And in the second place, the guy identifies as female and goes by "Rose", and according to the female nurses he said he'd been on female hormones but had gone off them because he was trying to get his girlfriend pregnant. We can all make our own judgments about whether that counts as Rose even being transgender, but we can depend on it that anybody who argues you have to keep taking the hormones and not try to father a child to qualify as a transwoman will get accused of transphobia.

Goodness that sounds hysterical.

The reality is that we don't know the situation at that hospital. Just accusations which can be true, misleading, or false. It should be dealt with professionally.

 

[Jarhyn]

If the person a was lesbian and had the same behavior, are we kicking lesbians out of women's spaces too

Or if the person was whatever definition of Woman suits Bomb in this particular moment?

Why should anyone allow this kind of behavior by anyone? Just fire them or eject them for harassing others.

There's no need to bring gender into it at all.

 

[Bomb#20]

1. Emily is not promoting "a Biblical view of womanhood". The Bible agreeing about some detail of a topic does not make that detail "a Biblical view". You might as well claim the public has every right to expect zoologists to shut up about artiodactyls and perissodactyls in a science class because distinguishing cloven hooves from non-cloven hooves is "a Biblical view". Get a grip.

If they're using the Bible's list? Like hell I'm going to accept that. Biology has advanced, and we must advance with it.

Emily is not "using the Bible's list". The "male and female" list has been used by a thousand cultures because they observed males and females; that the Bible authors were from one of them does not make that list the Bible's private property.

2. The view of womanhood you've promoted, even claiming forensic specialists can't tell a dead adult human woman from a man by examining their complete skeletons, is not "that which scientific consensus defines".

That's just a fact. At least as originally presented. You are, of course, misrepresenting what I said.

The entire exchange is still available for any readers who want to review it. A certain Prof. Yearwood implied forensic specialists can't tell a dead adult human woman from a man by examining their complete skeletons, so an audience who knew better laughed at him, and I called him an idiot, and you said "his answer is correct in any case, certainly not laughable." And if my above characterization were misrepresenting what you said then you wouldn't have preceded your accusation with "That's just a fact." Yearwood's answer to Gaines was idiotic; I established that conclusively in the earlier thread; your feeble attempts at defending him were an extended exercise in goalpost shifting...

And the very idea that you think working in a CRM lab for a year didn't give me more insight into forensic science than you got from reading some alt right websites is wild.

... and ad hominems like that one. You have zero basis for thinking I got my information from alt right websites. You made it up because it's damaging and you don't care whether what you say about your outgroup is true.

Yes, most of the time we have a pretty good guess as far as sexing a skeleton. Never 100%, but a pretty good guess.

99%+, when the skeletons aren't partly missing. Gaines didn't say "100%". That's a goalpost move you threw in.

Gender is another kind of question, as you and Emily pretend to understand one minute then forget the next.

Gaines was talking about sex. If Yearwood chose to make believe she was talking about gender, that's one of the idiotic things he did.

3. A college science class is not some bloody madrassah where silent students dutifully copy down dictation from a certified-orthodox Koran scholar. It's a college. The public has every right to expect students to challenge what the professor says, make her prove what she took for granted, bring up facts that bear against the theories she propounds, and propose alternative explanations, even if the scientific consensus says those students are wrong. Prohibiting debate turns education into unscientific indoctrination even when the professor is right.

On this, we are in partial agreement. A college that is doing its job allows for opportunities to question and discuss matters of contention, and mine does. No one student has the right to monopolize my classroom, though; they are all paying to be there, handily at that, and most students are there to learn, not to argue politics.

By all means, point out to us where Emily tried to monopolize the discussion. Point out where she or any of us on the gender-critical side tried to silence gender-ideologues. You guys are the ones supporting censorship, M. "They are free to do as they like within their congregations or in their kitchens, but not in a public sociology class."

And I'm definitely not compelled to teach pseudoscience on any given topic just because it is popular outside the academy at the moment.

Why the bejesus would you equate "They" being free to speak their opinion in a public sociology class with you being compelled to teach pseudoscience? Are you seriously under the impression that every sociology classroom in the nation is your personal media outlet? You can teach whatever you please in your class and some other professor can teach whatever she wants in hers, even when you think she's teaching pseudoscience and even when she thinks you are. Exactly which part of "academic freedom" don't you understand?

4. Yes, you bloody well can teach religious beliefs as facts. Professors teach all manner of religions as fact, from Marxism and Critical Race Theory to Gender Ideology.

<expletive deleted> Orwellian double speak <expletive deleted>.

Good to see your ability to put together a substantive argument hasn't deteriorated.

Scientific consensus is driven by objective observation, not ideological conviction.

Duh. That's why there's no scientific consensus in favor of Marxism, or Critical Race Theory, or Gender Ideology. Doesn't mean academia doesn't contain professors who propound each of those irrational belief systems as if they were correct. Academic freedom means professors get to say things there's no scientific consensus on.

If you feel it is wrong in some way, you are free to present your evidence to the contrary,

What "it" are you referring to? Of course scientific consensus is driven by objective observation, not ideological conviction, barring the odd outlier like continental drift denial.

Also, theories and facts are not synonyms. Let alone legal theories. Who the hell taught you the scientific method?

Where the hell am I supposed to have said theories are facts? The circumstance that there are professors who can't tell the difference and I criticize them for it does not mean I'm endorsing their view.

I am quite certain that UC Davis does not teach its students that theories are facts.

One of my relatives went to Davis. I am quite certain that veterinary medicine is not taught at UC Davis the way you teach sociology here at IIDB.

 

[Politesse]

Emily is not "using the Bible's list". The "male and female" list has been used by a thousand cultures because they observed males and females; that the Bible authors were from one of them does not make that list the Bible's private property.

You were asking about artiodactyls, did you forget your own stupid metaphor?

 

[Emily Lake]

Sex has nothing at all to do with "gender" characteristics.

Then basing social policy on sex is inappropriate, even if it were possible, and inherently sexist. Using a changing room or applying for a passport or playing soccer are social behaviors, not biological functions. Gender, not sex.

Are you seriously advocating that we should base public policy on whether or not someone likes wearing a dress? Your assumption here is ridiculous. Changing rooms are based on sex, not on whether or not a person has an affinity for lipstick or steel-toed boots. Sports are separated based on the physical differences conferred by sex, not by wishes for affirmation and a feeling of being "girly" or "boyish".

none of them are supreme dictates that govern how a person must behave or what sort of social roles they must perform.

This I agree with 100%, which is why what you're trying to do, in policing how other people socially identify is completely inappropriate and antisocial.

I don't care about anybody's identity, Poli. I have zero intention of policing people's social identities in any fashion - they can do whatever the hell they want as an adult.

I do care about sex. And I have an extremely strong objection to your seeming position that any male-bodied person should have a LEGAL RIGHT to see females naked, and to parade their genitals around in front of females without their consent, all based on what they claim to be their internal womanly feels.

It's inappropriate and antisocial for you to disregard the consent and boundaries of women in favor of affirming the feelings of any male who says they have subjective special internal feelings that make them a woman.

 

[Emily Lake]

Your objections to freedom of gender expression and accessibility to sex therapies are fundamentally social and political, not contingent on future scientific discoveries. Given that you're already demanding that your government ignore 60 years of research in sex and gender studies, what's one more year?

I have zero objection to gender expression. I object to the inane notion that a person's gender expression should somehow override the realities of sex when it comes to sex-specific spaces and services.

I have zero objection to any ADULT having whatever cosmetic surgeries they wish, albeit I prefer they be at their own expense.

What research in sex and gender studies do you think I'm "ignoring" when I say that a female human being should have the right to request a female medical provider or carer provide intimate care when they're disabled or incapacitated? What exactly do you think I'm ignoring when I say that a male who feels womanly still has a physical advantage when it comes to sports, and should therefore not play in women's leagues?

 

[Emily Lake]

Feminism is defined in many ways, We all know this. But all forms of ferminism should at a minimum be focused on expanding women's rights, not constricting them. Telling a woman that she is a criminal because she refused to use a bathroom or changing room with a iconographic dress on the door is not expanding women's rights. To champion a "feminism" that restricts a person's right to identify her own gender, restricts her movement in society, forbids her from certain places of employment, residence, and recreation is to undercut the entire feminist project.

Oh good gravy.

You're actually pretty close in the red. Much of what you're preaching is formenism, not feminism. You're busy telling female human beings that they're evil bigots if they don't prioritize the desires of males above their own, and throw open the door to any male who wishes to enter their spaces. You're advocating for the wide-spread violation of female boundaries at the whim of any male who says magic words.

 

[Politesse]

You're busy telling female human beings that they're evil bigots if they don't prioritize the desires of males above their own, and throw open the door to any male who wishes to enter their spaces.

I said nothing of the sort, and wouldn't.

 

[Emily Lake]

I brought it up because you were claiming I support discrimination. I support equality of opportunity. Society used to be unequal, now it's unequal in the other direction.

Equality of opportunity for males to have access to naked or vulnerable females without their consent?

You still haven't provided any indication that it actually happens.

Wi Spa
Prisons in WA, NJ, NY, and IL
Evergreen College pool
NHS Inpatient wards
Rape Shelters in Scotland
IL High Schools

Is your head in the sand?

 

[Emily Lake]

Either people use the bathroom corresponding to their birth anatomy or they use the bathroom corresponding to their current presentation. It makes no sense to treat them differently.

People should use the bathroom that other people are most likely to assume they belong in. That means if they reasonably pass they get to use the bathroom that corresponds to their presentation, and if they don't pass they stick with the one that corresponds to their anatomy. Of course, that requires a degree of self-awareness rather than wishes, and would preclude Eddie Izzard using the women's lavatory.

This is specific to bathrooms. It does not apply to showers, nude spas, or prisons. Nor does it translate into athletics, medical care, and other situations.

 

[Emily Lake]

You're busy telling female human beings that they're evil bigots if they don't prioritize the desires of males above their own, and throw open the door to any male who wishes to enter their spaces.

I said nothing of the sort, and wouldn't.

Does this mean you support female human beings who do not wish to have males in their single-sex spaces where they are nude? You support the women at Wi Spa who objected to Darren Merager exhibiting his penis to the women in the female side? You support the teenagers who objected to the school allowing a fully intact male to use the female showers with them?

 

[Politesse]

Does this mean you support female human beings who do not wish to have males in their single-sex spaces where they are nude?

Support? Yes. You have my support. I earnestly hope you feel better soon. You can even ask someone to leave a given space, that is your right as long as it isn't your business or organization.

What we cannot have legal discrimination on the basis of sex in this country. Even if it were acceptable in principle, it would be impossible to enforce without further violations of civil rights. And I think even you will eventually start to miss the protections of the 14th amendment should your faction succeed in dismantling it.

 

[Emily Lake]

Does this mean you support female human beings who do not wish to have males in their single-sex spaces where they are nude?

Support? Yes. You have my support. I earnestly hope you feel better soon.

That's a pretty shitty thing for you to say. You've couched it in false niceness, but don't mislead yourself into thinking anyone is fooled by it. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. So congrats for being intentionally insulting, yay you.

You can even ask someone to leave a given space, that is your right as long as it isn't your business or organization.

That's a bit weaselly, isn't it? But hey, let's play that out. By your approach here, I could be naked in a shower, and a completely unknown male could walk right in to the shower I'm using and join me without my consent. And because I don't own the gym, I don't have a right to ask that unknown male to leave.

You seem to think that this is not a massive violation of my consent and my boundaries. Apparently "no" only means "no" if I personally own the business?

What we cannot have legal discrimination on the basis of sex in this country. Even if it were acceptable in principle, it would be impossible to enforce without further violations of civil rights. And I think even you will eventually start to miss the protections of the 14th amendment should your faction succeed in dismantling it.

Is it your position that the 14th amendment requires that ALL showers and spas in the US must be unisex facilities?
Is it your position that the 14th amendment requires that Title IX be completely dismantled and all sports must be mixed sex?

Or do you think perhaps you're conflating sex and gender when it suits you to do so, and pretending that disallowing males from female-only spaces is "sex discrimination" if those males perceive themselves to be women?

 

[Bomb#20]

In the first place, the reason HR is letting the male nurse get away with this behavior and telling the female nurses they need to be reeducated is HR's submission to transgender ideology.

Well, I get that you believe that. If HR is allowing a person to endanger and create privacy problems in locker rooms, that isn't submitting to transgender ideology, that is negligence.

If this were negligence the NHS would have filed the complaints in some forgotten filing cabinet; it wouldn't have lectured the nurses about their need for education. The notion that HR would still have told the nurses they needed to “broaden their mindset” and be more inclusive if it had been a lesbian or cis-male sexually harassing them is fanciful.

Arguing "That doesn't count because the guy isn't really transgender" is adding insult to injury to the victims when making any administrative inquiry into the sincerity of someone's claim to be transgender is verboten for ideological reasons.

There are two issues, one regarding what to do with transgenders, and one regarding safety of women. This appears to be the later, not the former. If the guy isn't even transgender, it isn't a No True Scotsman issue to raise that point. And for a bonus, since when does a potential bad actor lead us to through an entire thing out into the garbage bin? If the person a was lesbian and had the same behavior, are we kicking lesbians out of women's spaces too? Or gay males out of men's spaces?

If the person a was lesbian and had the same behavior, are we kicking lesbians out of women's spaces too

Or if the person was whatever definition of Woman suits Bomb in this particular moment?

Why should anyone allow this kind of behavior by anyone? Just fire them or eject them for harassing others.

There's no need to bring gender into it at all.

You two seem to have lost the thread. I didn't post about the NHS events as proof that the solution is to exclude biological males; I posted about them because Loren wrote:

Equality of opportunity for males to have access to naked or vulnerable females without their consent?

You still haven't provided any indication that it actually happens.

I therefore provided evidence that it actually happens. "Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please."

 

[Bomb#20]

You can even ask someone to leave a given space, that is your right as long as it isn't your business or organization.

That's a bit weaselly, isn't it? But hey, let's play that out. By your approach here, I could be naked in a shower, and a completely unknown male could walk right in to the shower I'm using and join me without my consent. And because I don't own the gym, I don't have a right to ask that unknown male to leave.

You seem to think that this is not a massive violation of my consent and my boundaries. Apparently "no" only means "no" if I personally own the business?

That's not what he said. It's the other way around -- he said it's your right as long as it ==> isn't <== your business or organization. By his approach here, you have every right to ask that unknown male to leave, but of course the unknown male has every right to ignore your request and join you anyway because you don't own the shower. But if he comes into the shower, so you call the gym owner for backup, she has no right to back you up. The owner can't ask him to leave, precisely because it ==> is <== her business. That makes asking him to leave sex discrimination by a business. (If an analogy helps, by Politesse's approach here, if the unknown male wants sex with a lesbian she can turn him down because she's a regular person, but if the lesbian's a prostitute then she has no right to turn away male johns and they're entitled to damages when they sue her for discriminating against them.)

So in your misinterpretation of Politesse's post you were injecting a smidgen of reasonableness where there wasn't even that. Apparently "no" only means "no" if the unknown male wants it to mean "no".

What we cannot have legal discrimination on the basis of sex in this country.

 

[Politesse]

Is it your position that the 14th amendment requires that ALL showers and spas in the US must be unisex facilities?
Is it your position that the 14th amendment requires that Title IX be completely dismantled and all sports must be mixed sex?

No.

But I do think that no one has the right to tell you what your gender identity must be, nor that it is ever legal to discriminate on the basis of sex. You're inventing the most sympathetic hypothetical you possibly can, so that you don't have to look at thousands of much more likely scenarios that make you look more like a common bully. It's a tactic similar to when segregationists used to go, "so you think n----o gangs should just be allowed to freely patrol the streets of charming white suburbs murdering innocent children at will?" in defense of racialized housing covenants.

I occasionally advise a student club that advocates for Native American students. The membership is mostly Native, and it was always meant to be a place where Native students could meet, hang out, and talk about Indian stuff. This is fine and entirely legal. On the other hand, they cannot exclude non-Native students from the club, or kick someone out for being a "fake NDN" or "not NDN enough". That would be illegal as hell, and should be.

 

[Bomb#20]

The government does not and cannot endorse a Biblical view of womanhood over that which scientific consensus defines.

1. Emily is not promoting "a Biblical view of womanhood". The Bible agreeing about some detail of a topic does not make that detail "a Biblical view". You might as well claim the public has every right to expect zoologists to shut up about artiodactyls and perissodactyls in a science class because distinguishing cloven hooves from non-cloven hooves is "a Biblical view". Get a grip.

If they're using the Bible's list? Like hell I'm going to accept that. Biology has advanced, and we must advance with it.

Emily is not "using the Bible's list". The "male and female" list has been used by a thousand cultures because they observed males and females; that the Bible authors were from one of them does not make that list the Bible's private property.

You were asking about artiodactyls, did you forget your own stupid metaphor?

Did you forget what it was a metaphor for was your own stupid argument? I've reinserted the context you appear to have lost so we can back this up to the beginning. There is no rule prohibiting the government from endorsing common sense just because the Bible happens to agree with common sense in a particular case. If you have any basis for claiming the view of womanhood Emily has been arguing for is in fact "Biblical", as opposed to merely being a common-sense view billions of people have taken for non-Bible-related reasons, feel free to explain your basis.