Split Gendered spaces, split from Drag Shows

[Loren Pechtel]

Why not? When will it be time to address those?

Now.

Just, not by victimizing an even more marginalized group.

But it’s ok to victimize cis women? Because that’s how it feels to me. What I hear is that it is ridiculous and harmful for cis women to be concerned for their own safety. That being concerned for our safety is bigotry.

And not one single person has told me HOW women are supposed t immediately discern that the naked stranger with a penis standing next to them is a woman and no threat.

Again and again you claim a threat that the numbers don't bear out. Until the Republicans made it an issue it's simply been happening in many places without causing problems. The "evidence" arguing there's a problem conveniently either looks at trans but fails to address where the offense happened, or looks at where but fails to address what--lumping looking too much in with actual assault.

Whenever I see a position with a bunch of low grade evidence and no high grade evidence I take that as a concession that they're wrong.

We’re ridiculous for caring about safety and modesty and not just accepting that people with penises have every right to be where ever they feel most comfortable —and cis women are bigots for objecting.

We’re called shrews and frigid for not being comfortable with whatever naked person with a penis wants to be near us.

We’re sluts and whores if we are too accepting of naked people with penises.

We’re blamed if someone with a penis rapes us. Blamed for not being careful enough, pure enough, sober enough, vigilant enough, understanding enough.

Huh? Once again, you're lumping a whole bunch of things--you can't prove your point so you lump it in with other points that can be proven (although with your list there's a bunch that can't) and pretend you've proven the lot.

Blamed for being too ( fill in the blank). I’m too exhausted from a lifetime of this bullshit.

And now, we’re bigots for having any feelings at all about naked strangers with penises in the women’s locker room.

You think trans women are being scapegoated?

No. Trans women are fine! I really mean that. They are not the problem. The problem is the glib expectation that women just will accept whatever someone with a penis tells us we should.

It’s the bullshit, the conflicting messages and the overwhelming one that whatever happens, we’re just wrong. We have no right to ever expect to feel comfortable and safe. We just have to accept whatever someone with a penis ( past or present) tells you to accept.

I’m sorry for venting. I’m sorry if you feel attacked or marginalized or scapegoated. Truly. That’s been my whole life. It sucks. I never want to do that to anyone. My fault entirely.

The problem is you are focusing on penises as an obvious symbol of the problem, never mind that you haven't presented any cases where there wasn't already an obvious problem before any penis made an appearance.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The fact is, some day a person claiming to be a trans woman is going to rape someone in a bathroom.

Hate to be the one to break it to you dude.
But Hannah Tubbs isn't the first or only trans woman convicted of sexually assaulting a female. IIRC, it was in the restroom at a Denny's restaurant.

Please note that they were male-presenting at the time of the offense. This says nothing about the safety of allowing female-presenting individuals into women's restrooms.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And not one single person has told me HOW women are supposed t immediately discern that the naked stranger with a penis standing next to them is a woman and no threat.

If he does it with a trench coat on the street it's indecent exposure. If he does in the lady's locker room, it's affirming.

Walk up to someone and expose yourself, crime. Go about your business which involves undressing, not a crime.

Vermont has no problem telling the two apart--public nudity is legal (some cities ban it, though), but undressing in front of someone is not.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And not one single person has told me HOW women are supposed t immediately discern that the naked stranger with a penis standing next to them is a woman and no threat.

If he does it with a trench coat on the street it's indecent exposure. If he does in the lady's locker room, it's affirming.

Amazing how few hits I can find on "troonytoons" and what little I find seems to be associated with Libs of TikTok. This makes me think it's another disinformation account.

Note, also, that if someone is going to jack off in public you get them off the street without anyone actually being harmed--a plus in my book.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I wouldn't say that everyone completely agrees--we all agree that stalls would be good but she wants them mandated and some of us disagree with that.

Loren, why is it so important to you that male-bodied people have access to naked women whenever they wish, and that women have no say in the matter?

It's the two edge cases that matter:

1) Transwomen.

2) Caregivers.

 

[TomC]

problem is you are focusing on penises as an obvious symbol of the problem, never mind that you haven't presented any cases where there wasn't already an obvious problem before any penis made an appearance.

I rather agree. Toni's tendency to talk about the penises is counterproductive to my mind. Penises aren't the problem.

Of course, penises can be weaponized. But the real problem is the people they're attached to. Males. And while sex segregation in restrooms is no guarantee of security it's a big improvement over not having it. Penises are the most obvious and clear marker of a male.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

My point is wider and goes to the "ambiguity": the belief that ownership of what she considers to be sufficiently penis shaped confers automatic risk in a social setting.

An unexpected naked person in a place where people are not expected to be naked, should be considered a threat or at the very least a problem.

A person naked where people are expected to be naked is not.

A naked person acting in a way naked people are supposed to act in a place that nudity happens is not an issue.

A naked person acting differently to the way naked people are expected to act in a place that nudity happens is an issue.

Person. Not "man" sometimes and "woman" other times, any person and every person.

Exactly. It's the behavior that's important, not the anatomy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But to be clear - my problem is very explicitly and specifically self-id. That's the problem. Because at that point, it's not a transwoman doing the assaulting... it's any man who feels like it, who knows he can get an easier time of it if he just says the magic phrase "I'm a transwoman". That's the problem.

Keep gatekeepers and clinical diagnoses, keep a requirement for training on how to behave around women and in women's spaces, and for fuck's sake, keep your dick covered... and I have no objections, no problems.

Please note that I have said that I'm fine with requiring either female ID or an obvious caregiver situation to permit penises in female spaces.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

My point is wider and goes to the "ambiguity": the belief that ownership of what she considers to be sufficiently penis shaped confers automatic risk in a social setting.

An unexpected naked person in a place where people are not expected to be naked, should be considered a threat or at the very least a problem.

A person naked where people are expected to be naked is not.

A naked person acting in a way naked people are supposed to act in a place that nudity happens is not an issue.

A naked person acting differently to the way naked people are expected to act in a place that nudity happens is an issue.

Person. Not "man" sometimes and "woman" other times, any person and every person.

Exactly. It's the behavior that's important, not the anatomy.

What behavior? A man's presence in the women's locker room, is already exhibiting illegal behavior. Is it up to the women in the locker room to then observe them for a while to ensure their behavior is legitimate and that the person is a trans woman?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Which is generally why the concern being raised isn't about trans women being a threat at all.

In general, right now, if male genitalia appears in a women locker room, there is a problem. That person does not belong there. Very binary condition. And easy for women.

The modification makes things instantly more difficult to judge. Are women supposed to leer at a trans woman for a certain number of seconds before turning away and going back to business once they are satisfied the person is a trans woman and not there inappropriately? I'm certain that isn't good for anyone in that locker room.

Why is it so difficult for people to even accept that this is a thing? That there is implied risk in the ambiguity created when the dichotomy is disrupted.

I will agree it makes it not quite so easy--but reality is inconvenient, simple rules rarely suffice to cover all cases.

Somehow I don't think you would be so happy if a police officer thumped a violent hypoglycemic patient and tossed him in a cell to die.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Again and again we make the comparison to what used to happen to blacks--and again and again it's deflected, not addressed.

Why would you make that comparison? It makes no sense. Do you think black women are all okay with naked guys in the locker room?

White women used to not be ok with black women in white restrooms.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Which is generally why the concern being raised isn't about trans women being a threat at all.

In general, right now, if male genitalia appears in a women locker room, there is a problem. That person does not belong there. Very binary condition. And easy for women.

The modification makes things instantly more difficult to judge. Are women supposed to leer at a trans woman for a certain number of seconds before turning away and going back to business once they are satisfied the person is a trans woman and not there inappropriately? I'm certain that isn't good for anyone in that locker room.

Why is it so difficult for people to even accept that this is a thing? That there is implied risk in the ambiguity created when the dichotomy is disrupted.

I will agree it makes it not quite so easy--but reality is inconvenient, simple rules rarely suffice to cover all cases.

Inconvenient? If we want to just gloss over what you calling for. We are trying to determine how trans-women can access an area they have a right to be in, while respecting the concerns of women regarding safety from people that commit actions from the lewd to very violent. You current solution is "women need to accept it", but I don't think you understand what you are actually telling all parties to endure.

After all, you said behavior is what matters more than biology. And I'd agree, when it comes to crimes. Behavior has already been exhibited that is problematic... ie a naked "male" in the women's locker room. You've created a situation where women in locker rooms become responsible for monitoring trans women. Which also makes the trans women victims here, because they likely don't want people staring and monitoring their behavior until women are comfortable that the naked "male" is a trans woman. It isn't helping anybody.

 

[Emily Lake]

How do we tell the difference?

When you're asking for rights to be taken away from the disadvantaged, you've stepped over the line. It's not complicated.

OMFG. I'm not asking for rights to be taken away from anyone - I and other women are the ones who are being forced to relinquish our rights!

No male has a "right" to enter female-only spaces where women are naked or vulnerable, on his merest whim. You know why? Because women have a RIGHT to give or deny CONSENT to having men view us while we're naked, touch us when we're vulnerable, or expose their genitals to us. WE HAVE A RIGHT TO REFUSE CONSENT TO THE WHIMS OF MALES.

 

[Emily Lake]

How do we tell the difference?

How do we tell the difference?

When you're asking for rights to be taken away from the disadvantaged, you've stepped over the line. It's not complicated.

As soon as someone does that, I will be there protesting, or telling them off, right beside you.

When you're asking for rights to be taken away from the disadvantaged, you've stepped over the line. It's not complicated.

Apparently Poli has decided, as the manly man that he is, that women are NOT disadvantaged. Or at least, he has decided that he doesn't give a fuck about the disadvantages that women face. Women's disadvantages aren't nearly as important as the feels of a subset of males.

 

[Emily Lake]

I wouldn't say that everyone completely agrees--we all agree that stalls would be good but she wants them mandated and some of us disagree with that.

Loren, why is it so important to you that male-bodied people have access to naked women whenever they wish, and that women have no say in the matter?

Or, why should everyone else, the rest of society, do a 180 on separate sex spaces to affirm a few men’s body dysphoria?

Yep. A wise, logical man once said, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the one)." It would behoove some people on this forum to consider the wisdom of that philosophy."

That wisdom is not that wise when used unwisely. It can lead to the tyranny of the 51%. (I do like your use of behoove)

Sure. And when NOT used, it leads to the continued oppression and mistreatment of 51% of the fucking population!

 

[TomC]

We are trying to determine how trans-women can access an area they have a right to be in, while respecting the concerns of women regarding safety from people that commit actions from the lewd to very violent.

Why do male women have "rights", while female women only have "concerns"?
Tom

 

[Emily Lake]

Loren, what is wrong is to expect women to simply accept one of the things they have been conditioned to see as a threat in a space that they regard as safe and private and to do so immediately. BTW, at zero inconvenience to cis men who don't give a shit about women anyway.

And you still haven't explained how this is any different than allowing black women into white women's restrooms.

Because, and I know this is an incredible stretch for you, black women are FEMALES, just like white women.

Black women are not males, and making this particular analogy has you in the position of pushing the racist trope that black women are "manly" and don't count as "real women". It's fucked up and it's wrong.

 

[TomC]

Sure. And when NOT used, it leads to the continued oppression and mistreatment of 51% of the fucking population!

It isn't just the 51% of the population that are female.
I'm a guy, I don't much care who joins me in those places. But I care about and know about enough women to understand that they generally feel very differently about that.

Very very differently.
Tom

 

[Emily Lake]

As a group, trans-women do not have a history of being violent towards cis-women.

Based on... what? Because it's certainly not based on the documented fact that 40% of transwomen who are incarcerated are in prison for sexual crimes. And it's sure as hell not based on the documented fact that transwomen display the same patterns of violence as do any other male.

Not all males are violent, but violent people are overwhelmingly male. And no matter how much you spread a mantra over it, transwomen are still male. Most of them are completely physically intact, and most of them don't even take testosterone suppressants.

 

[Emily Lake]

Why is it so difficult for people to even accept that this is a thing? That there is implied risk in the ambiguity created when the dichotomy is disrupted.

Because that's the very essence of bigotry.

It's not different in any way from the reasoning that apartheid is necessary, because blacks commit crimes, and letting those blacks that don't commit crimes into white areas, disrupts the dichotomy that made arresting criminal blacks so easy and straightforward.

But somehow it's NOT the essence of bigotry to hand-wave away the realistic concerns of women, it's NOT the essence of bigotry to support policies that create massive loopholes for males to exploit against women, it's NOT the essence of bigotry for a bunch of men to decide that women should be sacrificed in order to 1) assuage the feels of a subset of other males and 2) allow men in general to not have to change their behavior to be more accepting and accommodating of members of their own sex.

It's somehow NOT bigotry to hold a position that women as a group can be used as human shields and sacrificial lambs in the name of "progress" for males.

You can fuck right off with telling me and other women that our completely rational desire to have at least some spaces where we are free from assaults by males is "bigotry". You can fuck right off with telling me and other women that we don't have a right to refuse consent to any fucking male who wants to see us while we're naked, or to expose themselves to us at their whim.