Split Gendered spaces, split from Drag Shows

[ZiprHead]

We need to learn to live with it. But that'll require a great deal of time. Also trust. Ultimately it should be based on identity and behavior. Lesbians aren't required to have their own changing room. But if one was observed enjoying the view, there would probably be consequences.

Accommodating the rights of transgenders in the locker is tricky because it isn't what we are used to and even when given time, it will never become something that is common, with transgenders not being a particularly common percent of the population.

I said many years ago the transgender issue was going to be a much more difficult problem to overcome than equal rights for gay people.

 

[lostone]

I have no doubt that I showered with gay people when I was in the Navy, and I was a small weak, male. Did they bother me, or anyone else? No. They left people who gave them no clear come-on signals alone. Trans people will do the same.

 

[TSwizzle]

I have no doubt that I showered with gay people when I was in the Navy, and I was a small weak, male. Did they bother me, or anyone else? No. They left people who gave them no clear come-on signals alone. Trans people will do the same.

Don't be so sure.

A trans woman who groomed and had sex with a 14-year-old girl, making her pregnant, has been jailed. The defendant - named by police as "David Orton, also known as Danielle Rose Gemini" - was found guilty of penetrative sexual activity with a child following a trial.

BBC

 

[Oleg]

I have no doubt that I showered with gay people when I was in the Navy, and I was a small weak, male. Did they bother me, or anyone else? No. They left people who gave them no clear come-on signals alone. Trans people will do the same.

I dunno. Still seems like a very male viewpoint.

 

[TomC]

I have no doubt that I showered with gay people when I was in the Navy, and I was a small weak, male. Did they bother me, or anyone else? No. They left people who gave them no clear come-on signals alone. Trans people will do the same.

You're kidding yourself.

When you were in the Navy I'm sure you didn't have any problems. That was a highly disciplined environment.

If the Jarhyns of the world are entitled to use the women's restroom at the mall, so are the Hannah Tubbs* of the world.
Tom

* Tubbs is an MtF convicted of sexually assaulting a girl at a popular restaurant chain in the women's restroom.

 

[lostone]

I have no doubt that I showered with gay people when I was in the Navy, and I was a small weak, male. Did they bother me, or anyone else? No. They left people who gave them no clear come-on signals alone. Trans people will do the same.

I dunno. Still seems like a very male viewpoint.

That's a very masculine looking trans person, and therefore atypical. Most trans people claiming to be feminine would not be so obviously and stridently male, and would not be hitting on females. What about the case of a much more feminine looking trans person claiming to be female (or male) in the men's room?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I have no doubt that I showered with gay people when I was in the Navy, and I was a small weak, male. Did they bother me, or anyone else? No. They left people who gave them no clear come-on signals alone. Trans people will do the same.

Don't be so sure.

A trans woman who groomed and had sex with a 14-year-old girl, making her pregnant, has been jailed. The defendant - named by police as "David Orton, also known as Danielle Rose Gemini" - was found guilty of penetrative sexual activity with a child following a trial.

BBC

So, am I mistaken in thinking that straight men have done this too? Because otherwise... your post really isn't contradicting lostone much as it could be inferred they didn't mean every single person that is transgender.

 

[TomC]

I have no doubt that I showered with gay people when I was in the Navy, and I was a small weak, male. Did they bother me, or anyone else? No. They left people who gave them no clear come-on signals alone. Trans people will do the same.

Don't be so sure.

A trans woman who groomed and had sex with a 14-year-old girl, making her pregnant, has been jailed. The defendant - named by police as "David Orton, also known as Danielle Rose Gemini" - was found guilty of penetrative sexual activity with a child following a trial.

BBC

So, am I mistaken in thinking that straight men have done this too? Because otherwise... your post really isn't contradicting lostone much as it could be inferred they didn't mean every single person that is transgender.

No.
The mistake was when lostone said "Trans people will do the same".
They won't.

Most will, just like most men will refrain from violent rape. But not all. MtF are still men, with male tendencies as a group.

If anything, I expect that MtF are more dangerous than ordinary guys.
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

I have no doubt that I showered with gay people when I was in the Navy, and I was a small weak, male. Did they bother me, or anyone else? No. They left people who gave them no clear come-on signals alone. Trans people will do the same.

Don't be so sure.

A trans woman who groomed and had sex with a 14-year-old girl, making her pregnant, has been jailed. The defendant - named by police as "David Orton, also known as Danielle Rose Gemini" - was found guilty of penetrative sexual activity with a child following a trial.

BBC

So, am I mistaken in thinking that straight men have done this too? Because otherwise... your post really isn't contradicting lostone much as it could be inferred they didn't mean every single person that is transgender.

No.
The mistake was when lostone said "Trans people will do the same".
They won't.

Most will, just like most men will refrain from violent rape. But not all. MtF are still men, with male tendencies as a group.

If anything, I expect that MtF are more dangerous than ordinary guys.
Tom

The researchers state: ‘male-to-females . . . retained a male pattern regarding criminality. The same was true regarding violent crime.’ MtF transitioners were over 6 times more likely to be convicted of an offence than female comparators and 18 times more likely to be convicted of a violent offence. The group had no statistically significant differences from other natal males, for convictions in general or for violent offending. The group examined were those who committed to surgery, and so were more tightly defined than a population based solely on self-declaration.

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/

 

[Politesse]

Finally: Should not everyone be able to expect to feel safe in showers and dressing rooms?

You mean, "the majority", right?

No, I mean EVERYONE.

Policies that target minorities as though they were a dangerous outgroup do not make them "feel safe", as a general rule.

I agree. It’s a difficult circumstance to navigate: how to make everyone feel safe and not stigmatized.

That doesn’t mean that women need to just get over it.

Unless they are trans women, in which case they must "get over it" or face the consequences?

There are no "easy answers" in this situation.

 

[TomC]

Most trans people claiming to be feminine would not be so obviously and stridently male, and would not be hitting on females.

That's kinda another problem with the subject.
How trans must a person be to qualify?

Does a guy who has never done anything in the way of therapy or transition qualify as entitled to use the women's changing room? Trans is very poorly defined.

Most persons of penage, trans or not, aren't the problem. Most of us would go out of our way to be polite and respectful of persons of boobage. It's the other ones...
Tom

 

[Toni]

Finally: Should not everyone be able to expect to feel safe in showers and dressing rooms?

You mean, "the majority", right?

No, I mean EVERYONE.

Policies that target minorities as though they were a dangerous outgroup do not make them "feel safe", as a general rule.

I agree. It’s a difficult circumstance to navigate: how to make everyone feel safe and not stigmatized.

That doesn’t mean that women need to just get over it.

Unless they are trans women, in which case they must "get over it" or face the consequences?

You know, it's a difficult issue, trying to balance the needs of pre/nonsurgical trans women with those of women who have certainly been socialized to believe that women's dressing rooms and showers are places where they should not be encountering individuals with penises. I've written that. I believe that. I felt/feel uncomfortable expressing this on this board because I know that what I'm talking about is something that very rarely would happen.

Women are blamed for their own sexual assaults, for not being careful enough with where they go or how they dress or how much they drink or if they party too hard or if they don't know not to park in that place, walk there, do this or do that, wear something that is too revealing or shoes that don't allow you to outrun your attacker and literally dozens of other things that women are blamed for.

And now I am being told that I want to discriminate against trans women for recognizing that it can be extremely uncomfortable and even traumatizing for women to be confronted with someone with an exposed penis when they want to take a shower at the gym. I don't want to discriminate. I want actual accommodations for women--all women, including trans women--that allow them to feel safe and secure and that respects their privacy.

I think having individual stalls with doors to provide privacy would be all that is necessary to preserve the privacy and security of all who use such spaces. I'm also old enough to remember very well how the need for bathroom stalls with doors has been used against women, as an excuse for not providing equal accommodations. On this very board, a lot of men have opined that there is no reason for any woman to object to having unisex bathrooms with urinals.

TomC and I rarely agree on much but he's right: it is a position of privilege that allows men to not care much about the needs of women or their concerns for safety and privacy.

 

[TomC]

Unless they are trans women, in which case they must "get over it" or face the consequences?

Pretty much, yeah.
The consequences being "expected to use the room right next door".

That's another point. What little I know about MtF, the problem is usually the attitude of the individual. A guy can dip into the women's restroom without any consequences providing they are circumspect. Usually.

A reasonable attempt at female presenting. Keep your eyes, and everything else, to yourself. Go in and do your business and get out.
Don't mess with anybody.

Prolly no-one will care.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don’t disagree—it should not matter. OTOH, I can well understand women being uncomfortable in bathrooms or showers/changing areas if they encounter a person with a penis and testicles. Yes, it is almost certainly not someone who intends them harm or even mild discomfort but of course there are individuals who would deliberately invade such spaces where women and girls are unclothed and vulnerable fir the purpose of intimidation or sexual thrills or even assault. Yes, that’s very rare. But for girls and women, especially those who are survivors of sexual assault—it could be very upsetting even if the individual was not there for any bad purposes. I would be upset if my young daughter had to deal with changing or showering with someone with intact male genitalia.

So it is difficult to even articulate what a good policy would be: in most cases, no harm would be intended or done. But how to eliminate the risk?

I will point out that it is unlikely that most boys and men would feel similarly threatened or uncomfortable if they encountered a pre surgical trans man.

I’m writing this as someone who is pretty comfortable with nudity. But I’d still prefer not to encounter someone with a penis in the ladies locker room at the Y.

The problem here that you are trying to impose your feelings on others even though you admit they're not based in reality.

I [a God-fearing Christian] find your Star of David threatening as it says you're not going to Heaven and thus must be of the devil. You should be prohibited from wearing it! Wear a proper cross!! (Yeah, I'm not Christian and I'm pretty sure you're not Jewish. Your fear is not relevant, you need an actual threat to justify restricting others. The threat need not be specific--DUI isn't a threat to a specific person but is prohibited anyway.)

 

[Oleg]

The problem here that you are trying to impose your feelings on others even though you admit they're not based in reality.

Isn’t the guy who wants to shower naked with girls/women who’s imposing? I mean, most guys do not care if a stranger sees them naked. That’s why we never hear of guys complaining about trans identified women in the restroom/gym shower/whatever. They do not care. Women are different. Astonishing that this could be denied.

 

[Toni]

I don’t disagree—it should not matter. OTOH, I can well understand women being uncomfortable in bathrooms or showers/changing areas if they encounter a person with a penis and testicles. Yes, it is almost certainly not someone who intends them harm or even mild discomfort but of course there are individuals who would deliberately invade such spaces where women and girls are unclothed and vulnerable fir the purpose of intimidation or sexual thrills or even assault. Yes, that’s very rare. But for girls and women, especially those who are survivors of sexual assault—it could be very upsetting even if the individual was not there for any bad purposes. I would be upset if my young daughter had to deal with changing or showering with someone with intact male genitalia.

So it is difficult to even articulate what a good policy would be: in most cases, no harm would be intended or done. But how to eliminate the risk?

I will point out that it is unlikely that most boys and men would feel similarly threatened or uncomfortable if they encountered a pre surgical trans man.

I’m writing this as someone who is pretty comfortable with nudity. But I’d still prefer not to encounter someone with a penis in the ladies locker room at the Y.

The problem here that you are trying to impose your feelings on others even though you admit they're not based in reality.

I [a God-fearing Christian] find your Star of David threatening as it says you're not going to Heaven and thus must be of the devil. You should be prohibited from wearing it! Wear a proper cross!! (Yeah, I'm not Christian and I'm pretty sure you're not Jewish. Your fear is not relevant, you need an actual threat to justify restricting others. The threat need not be specific--DUI isn't a threat to a specific person but is prohibited anyway.)

They ARE based on reality.

You are basing your position on your FEELINGS that women don’t have anything to fear from being surprised by an unknown person with a penis in the shower with them.

How would your wife react if she encountered a stranger with a penis in the shower with her? How would you react? Would your first assumption be that this stranger must be a pre-surgery trans woman and so no threat to your wife?

I don’t think so.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I go to the gym 2 hours a day, 6 days a week. I am uncomfortable in the locker room. I don't go in there, except to rarely use the urinal.....and by that I mean, urinating in the toilet in a stall for privacy. Men who use the locker room to shower and get naked are rare at the gym I go to.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Let's imagine for a moment that there is a large population of people who have been assaulted by, and only by, a black person, at an ATM.

It is an unfortunate reality of our world that the majority of crimes are committed by the poor in the US and the US has an endemic poverty problem among black people. The majority of money based assaults are committed by black people for this reason, a statistic touted by our board's racists time and again.

Does it make sense to have separated ATMs for black and white people because people may be uncomfortable having been assaulted by a black person at an ATM?

Now, change ATM and skin tone for bathroom and genital appearance...

I like your illustration better than mine.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

First of all, you are conflating poor and black with committing crimes. If the last 6 years have demonstrated nothing, it should be that white people, especially those with any sort of wealth and power are just a lot less likely to be arrested and prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned for their crimes.

They have said no such thing. The fact remains the poor are far more likely to commit crime than the well to do--and when the well to do commit crime it's usually embezzlement or other non-contact crime.

1) The poor have a lot less to lose by being caught. The deterrence value is less.

2) Previously having been convicted tends to put people in a lower socioeconomic status and thus means that there will be more people of a criminal nature amongst the poor.

Secondly, a large portion of women and girls have experienced some degree of sexual assault at some point in their lives. One in four have been raped. Very few of the survivors of sexual assault are traumatized by seeing men on the streets, in schools and work places, in their homes. Hell, a lot of them still live in the same homes with their rapists. I frequently saw the person who attempted to rape me at family events. So get off that right now.

Which has nothing to do with the danger posed by someone in a restroom.

Being in a dressing room when one is undressed and showering or preparing to shower or getting dressed again and being confronted by someone with a penis in a space that is supposedly for women would be startling for most girls and women, even those who have never experienced sexual assault. It could be quite traumatizing to be so confronted with such an individual when one is in an extremely vulnerable position: unclothed, partially or totally, and in a space where one did not expect to see anyone male.

Nudity is only traumatizing to those taught to fear genitals. Hint: Nudists don't go around getting assaulted. We have no need to honor irrational fears.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Having frankly seen more than enough violence in my life, I don't like dining in restaurants where people are open-carrying firearms, even if they are police. Should they all be forced to eat in private booths so as to spare me the worry? I am not sure "comfort" and "rights" should be balanced against one another in such a fashion.

I've seen very little violence but I agree--I don't like being around open carry types. It's not the gun per se (I have no problem being around people carrying concealed), but that the open carry crowd are typically not the brightest and open carry without a good retention holster is asking for your gun to be snatched. There's also the fact that the open carry types tend not to have had the CCW training--I am very not a fan of constitutional carry! It's like cars--show you know how the law and how to handle them before you're turned loose on the public. (I do disagree with the current system but that's my opposition to training requirements over knowledge requirements. DMV gets it right--show the skill, ignore how you acquired it.)