Split Gendered spaces, split from Drag Shows

[Loren Pechtel]

That's a bizarre argument -- if public toilets have been coed since the Middle Ages, when exactly should we have seen the massive increase in sexual assaults, assuming coed bathrooms are dangerous for women? Do you have reliable statistics on the rape rate in medieval Belgium?

The point is that shared bathrooms haven't been seen as a problem--implying there is no explosion of rape.

There doesn't need to be an explosion for there to be a problem. The rape rate may well have been 10% higher in Belgium ever since public bathrooms became widespread than it would have been if they'd been sex-segregated, and nobody who only notices explosions would have seen it as a problem.

But they certainly would have seen an explosion of rape reports in bathrooms.

 

[Oleg]

Your solution very happily and blithely sacrifices girls and women so you can try this experiment.

Girls and women are well below trans on the progressive stack. Trans are sacred. It's like offending God.

 

[Emily Lake]

And what about all of those telling you you can't exclude black people from white spaces?

Just so you can drop this asinine "oh it's just like racism" bullshit... I know far more black women who are way more vehemently opposed to the TRA objectives than any white woman I know.

You know what we have in common? We're all women. Actual women - the female kind.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If a transwoman wants to gain access to women's spaces maybe some sort of certification needs to be involved.

Which I'm completely fine with.

My standards would be MtF ID or a caregiver situation. (Parent/child is a form of caregiver situation.)

 

[Emily Lake]

It is disgusting to insist that asserting a woman’s right to privacy is equivalent to Jim Crow.

I cannot get over the number of males in this thread telling females that our boundaries and our insistence upon consent is bigotry against males who want to violate our boundaries and disregard our consent.

And what about all of those telling you you can't exclude black people from white spaces?

Are you under the assumption that non-white women want random naked men in the gym shower?

Realistically, there are a lot of non-white women that will be completely excluded from using the gym shower if those gym showers are used by males - regardless of how those males identify.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What do either of these have to do with the issue? And she's had both male and female gynecologists over the years.

I've had a female caregiver fondle my junk. She asked if I want another person in the room but I said it's not needed.

It's common for docs in this situation to want someone else in the room for their own protection against false accusations. I'm sufficiently used to docs having assistants in the room for whatever reason I didn't even realize they were there as a chaperone until the doc said their job was to make sure nobody walked in. She wasn't actually doing anything with my junk, just the skin right next to it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes, women have legitimate reason to fear men--nobody's contesting that. What you are failing to establish is why locker rooms are any greater threat than life in general, especially as the data says otherwise.

I know there's got to be a term for this fallacy, but I have no idea what it is.

Currently, locker rooms have a lower level of threat BECAUSE THEY ARE SEPARATED BY SEX AND MEN ARE NOT ALLOWED IN FEMALE LOCKERS. Therefore, it is immediately clear that any male in the female lockers is a threat - they are removed by managers and administrators. If you take away that separation, you eliminate the protection that allows them to have a lower rate of assault in the first place.

No, you are making a false jump here. Of course those who break the rules are a threat, but that doesn't make everyone who looks like them also a threat.

You lock your car when you get out right? I bet you almost never get anything stolen from your car. Now, obviously that means that things inside your car are largely safe from threat right? So go ahead - set policy that requires that everyone leave their cars unlocked. Because the statistics show that things in cars are pretty safe from thieves.

Can you see where the flaw is?

First, you continue to assume that your protection measure does anything. Second, bad example as there are plenty of places where accepted safety practice is leaving your doors unlocked. Locking them does nothing but get your windows broken.

 

[Emily Lake]

Quit mischaracterizing my position! I am not saying this! What I'm saying is that we don't have evidence that supposedly women-only spaces provide actual safety. We have plenty of examples of places that aren't keeping penises out of such spaces--and not seeing harm from this "omission". On the flip side the evidence for harm is low quality or even completely bogus (many of the cases being tossed around did not involve someone with a penis being admitted to a female-only space.) If there is good evidence why isn't it being presented?

This is absurd.

At the absolute bare minimum, even if actual fucking assaults don't increase*, you are STILL insisting that women have to relinquish their boundaries and their consent when it comes to males looking at them while they are naked, and males exposing themselves to them. At the absolute minimum, you are advocating to LEGALIZE voyeurism and exhibitionism at the whim of men, and to the detriment of women.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yeah, I get it, men don't matter, it's all about what happens to those who are by your definition women. Once again, no different than what we used to see with race issues.

Holy fuck. Men aren't being forced into a situation that increases their risk! Men aren't being forced to relinquish their boundaries!

Where do you get off insisting that women who don't allow males to violate their boundaries are bigots? WTF is wrong with you?

You're not rebutting me here. I'm after reducing overall risk--and the data says that allowing MtFs into female spaces does not cause risk. You're completely disregarding anything that happens to your outgroup, which apparently includes both the MtFs and the FtMs.

 

[Emily Lake]

If a transwoman wants to gain access to women's spaces maybe some sort of certification needs to be involved.

Which I'm completely fine with.

My standards would be MtF ID or a caregiver situation. (Parent/child is a form of caregiver situation.)

Are you okay with requiring medical diagnosis, a few years of treatment, and monitoring by a medical professional during the transition process? Or are you imagining this to be a "MtF ID Card" provided on the basis of someone filling out a form with no diagnosis and no requirements?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It is disgusting to insist that asserting a woman’s right to privacy is equivalent to Jim Crow.

I cannot get over the number of males in this thread telling females that our boundaries and our insistence upon consent is bigotry against males who want to violate our boundaries and disregard our consent.

And what about all of those telling you you can't exclude black people from white spaces?

Are you under the assumption that non-white women want random naked men in the gym shower?

I said "white" and "black", not "men" and "women". It's the same reasoning.

 

[Emily Lake]

What do either of these have to do with the issue? And she's had both male and female gynecologists over the years.

I've had a female caregiver fondle my junk. She asked if I want another person in the room but I said it's not needed.

It's common for docs in this situation to want someone else in the room for their own protection against false accusations. I'm sufficiently used to docs having assistants in the room for whatever reason I didn't even realize they were there as a chaperone until the doc said their job was to make sure nobody walked in. She wasn't actually doing anything with my junk, just the skin right next to it.

The cases of male patients being raped or sexually assaulted while under the care of a male clinician are vanishingly small. The opposite is not the case.

"Oh gee, I a man, have never been worried that a female doctor might rape me or feel me up while I'm sedated, so obviously those hysterical chicks are just overreacting to imaginary risks!"

 

[Emily Lake]

No, you are making a false jump here. Of course those who break the rules are a threat, but that doesn't make everyone who looks like them also a threat.

Of course <males who transgress well understood female boundaries> are a threat, but that doesn't make <every male that transgresses well understood female boundaries> a threat!

How the holy fuck are we supposed to tell the difference? Come on Loren - you seem to think that you've got all the answers, and that women are just overreacting and being scared for no good reason. So please, Mr. Man - tell me: How the fuck do we tell the difference?

Do you expect us to wait until AFTER we've been attacked, assaulted, or harassed? Is that your answer? We're not allowed to take reasonable precautions to prevent harm, we have to wait until the harm has occurred? And we have to let harm occur often enough to convince YOU that it's "too much harm"?

What's you benchmark for the acceptable amount of voyeurism and exhibitionism that women should be subjected to, before you decide it's too much? What's your thresshold for how much sexual assault is an acceptable amount for women to face in areas that are supposed to be female-only? How many rapes will it take before you decide that it's too many rapes?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Furthermore, the comparison to excluding blacks from white-only spaces has only been ridiculed, not rebutted at all.

Because it's stupid. This argument is used by trans folk to shame everyone else for excluding them from their dating pool, e.g., to have a "genital preference" is racist. Race and sex are not in the same category. At all.

Which is getting it backwards. It is not racist to have preferences about appearance even if those preferences align with racial patterns. The test shouldn't be "would you date one?", but "would you object to your child dating one?"

 

[Emily Lake]

g MtFs into female spaces does not cause risk. You're completely disregarding anything that happens to your outgroup, which apparently includes both the MtFs and the FtMs.

FFS, you're looking at data from an era where the number of MtFs was very small, and they were still recorded as crimes committed by males, and they required clinical diagnosis and treatment before being granted legal recognition of their acquired gender, and they were under strict requirements to NOT cause problems or they could have their gender recognition revoked.

That is not what is going on right now. Right now, if a man who SAYS he is trans - with no diagnosis, no treatment, no requirement for presentation, nothing at all except he said so - actually does leer at a woman, it's NOT considered voyeurism, because "he's a woman too". If he does rape someone, it's recorded as a rape committed by a woman against another woman!

Women are Human

 

[Emily Lake]

It is disgusting to insist that asserting a woman’s right to privacy is equivalent to Jim Crow.

I cannot get over the number of males in this thread telling females that our boundaries and our insistence upon consent is bigotry against males who want to violate our boundaries and disregard our consent.

And what about all of those telling you you can't exclude black people from white spaces?

Are you under the assumption that non-white women want random naked men in the gym shower?

I said "white" and "black", not "men" and "women". It's the same reasoning.

Sure, but you keep running this analogy as if "white is synonymous with "females" and "black is synonymous with "males". You keep painting females as the powerful oppressors who are mistreating the vulnerable males. It's stupid.

 

[Oleg]

Furthermore, the comparison to excluding blacks from white-only spaces has only been ridiculed, not rebutted at all.

Because it's stupid. This argument is used by trans folk to shame everyone else for excluding them from their dating pool, e.g., to have a "genital preference" is racist. Race and sex are not in the same category. At all.

Which is getting it backwards. It is not racist to have preferences about appearance even if those preferences align with racial patterns. The test shouldn't be "would you date one?", but "would you object to your child dating one?"

But what does that have to do with random naked men in the woman's gym shower? One thing that all human races share is the male/female binary.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Oh fucking bullshit Loren. YOU are the only one who thinks this is about being prudish. It's about whether or not women have the right to feel safe in women's locker rooms. I think they do. All of them. Including trans women. Who apparently are not safe in men's locker rooms because (some) men are intolerant violent creeps.

Keyword: "feel". That's where we differ--I'm concerned with actual safety, not perception of safety. And despite that deceptive bit from the Independent (note how they lumped offenses, and note that in such a situation it's going to be effectively impossible to prove/disprove voyeurism) the data says it doesn't matter with actual safety. I'm calling out the "women" sign as security theater.

You are NOT concerned with the safety of women. You are NOT concerned with the safety of trans people.

Your entire schtict is that women just have to live with it because men aren’t worried about seeing women naked. Men certainly seem to get all bent out of shape threatened if some gay man or gender non-confirming individual or trans person air just anyone on the LGBTQIA scale shows up in their locker room. You’re not at all interested in THAT. You simply do not care about women. Maybe you care about your wife. That sounds about where your concern ends. Oh, and to ensure that men don’t have to deal with things that upset them, such as their intolerance for those who are different and their propensity for violence.

Toni, come on. We know LP sees the world In a highly technical sense and sees things in theory as reality. Almost Panglossian. They do care, however, see things quite in the 'best of all world' sense. And in the best of all world's, what he suggests would be best. But we aren't in that world and your suggestion seems the most reasonable.

This thread is just degenerate in posts being exchanged without anyone actually trying to see things at least from the perspective of the person they are responding to.

*also fuck you spellchecker*

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It is disgusting to insist that asserting a woman’s right to privacy is equivalent to Jim Crow.

I cannot get over the number of males in this thread telling females that our boundaries and our insistence upon consent is bigotry against males who want to violate our boundaries and disregard our consent.

And what about all of those telling you you can't exclude black people from white spaces?

Are you under the assumption that non-white women want random naked men in the gym shower?

I said "white" and "black", not "men" and "women". It's the same reasoning.

Dude, black and white deviation wasn't separate but equal. Male and female is separate and equal (these days at least).

The first was about restricting access to decent facilities. The later is about... well, I'm not actually certain. After all women didn't have locker rooms at health clubs because they were women and women couldn't exercise... like at all. When were women allowed to use weights, the fucking 70s?! So I ponder whether women locker rooms possibly existed because men refused to share their space with women in the beginning.

But back to the race parallel, this isn't about restricting access because of who a person is. Trans are allowed access to a locker room. The question is how can we allow access for Trans to an opposing locker room without causing alarm or sense of threat, etc... This goes well beyond 'feelings' and well into the Instictive category of fight or flight.

 

[Toni]

Oh fucking bullshit Loren. YOU are the only one who thinks this is about being prudish. It's about whether or not women have the right to feel safe in women's locker rooms. I think they do. All of them. Including trans women. Who apparently are not safe in men's locker rooms because (some) men are intolerant violent creeps.

Keyword: "feel". That's where we differ--I'm concerned with actual safety, not perception of safety. And despite that deceptive bit from the Independent (note how they lumped offenses, and note that in such a situation it's going to be effectively impossible to prove/disprove voyeurism) the data says it doesn't matter with actual safety. I'm calling out the "women" sign as security theater.

You are NOT concerned with the safety of women. You are NOT concerned with the safety of trans people.

Your entire schtict is that women just have to live with it because men aren’t worried about seeing women naked. Men certainly seem to get all bent out of shape threatened if some gay man or gender non-confirming individual or trans person air just anyone on the LGBTQIA scale shows up in their locker room. You’re not at all interested in THAT. You simply do not care about women. Maybe you care about your wife. That sounds about where your concern ends. Oh, and to ensure that men don’t have to deal with things that upset them, such as their intolerance for those who are different and their propensity for violence.

Toni, come on. We know LP sees the world In a highly technical sense and sees things in theory as reality. Almost Panglossian. They do care, however, see things quite in the 'best of all world' sense. And in the best of all world's, what he suggests would be best. But we aren't in that world and your suggestion seems the most reasonable.

This thread is just degenerate in posts being exchanged without anyone actually trying to see things at least from the perspective of the person they are responding to.

*also fuck you spellchecker*

I genuinely do not think that is what is going on re: Loren. I mean no offense to anyone when I write that, including Loren.