Split Gendered spaces, split from Drag Shows

[Loren Pechtel]

Hey Loren - if you want to make your terminally flawed analogy to black rights actually work... all you need to do is to retain race-based segregation, but then make an exception where any white person who self-identifies as black has the legal right to use the black-only spaces.

That is actually a reasonable parallel. But then it shows your analogy for the complete lunacy that it actually is.

What's the person that's half-white/half-black supposed to do in such a world?

(And, no, I will not accept what the law was in Arizona for a while--they're part black so they can't marry a white. They're part white so they can't marry a non-white. The state Supreme Court noted the issue but since it didn't need to be addressed to deal with the question before them they ignored it.)

 

[TomC]

What's the person that's half-white/half-black supposed to do in such a world?

Yeah, I never understood that about Jim Crow either. How white did a person have to be to use "White Only" facilities?

But I was just a kid. By the time I noticed anything outside my family that stuff was gone.

Sex is different.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Everyone has rights with regard to themselves. They do not have the right to strip others of their rights.

What rights are you talking about?

Nobody has a right to use a particular room, making the occupants uncomfortable and unsafe, when there is a near identical facility right next to it.
Tom

And when the occupants of that other room will also have a problem with the situation what are they supposed to do?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

They were not claiming trans identity at the time of the offense.

Hannah Tubbs is a male woman who sexually assaulted a female in the women's restroom of a family restaurant.

I don't care what she was wearing at the time.
Tom

Which shows you do not understand the issue.

At the time of their actions they were male presenting and not declared trans. Thus they should be treated as a male, not as a transwoman. This case is a strawman and shows how weak the anti-trans case actually is. Why don't they present a case of a female-presenting rapist in a women's room? Somehow I think the lack of presenting such a case means none exist.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Question for the class

Should a post op, top and bottom, trans woman be considered a woman who should be allow in women-only spaces?

Provided they behave, I have no objection.

The question I have is... how do we tell? And that's the problem. Short of asking any male-looking person to drop trou and prove they haven't got a willy, there's no way to tell.

And if I end up in a position of having to allow in any male who says they're trans, or allowing in no males at all, I'm going to have to land on none at all.

It's not my preference, but the good will of women has been abused and exploited, and I'm not standing for it any longer.

And what do you do with a male-looking woman?? It's been a problem for my SIL. She's cis-female but has on several occasions been thought to be a man trying to sneak into the women's room.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In a non-bigoted society, all people are sanctioned based only on their actual behaviours. Not on the behaviours we imagine that they might indulge in, based on filtering their physical appearance through our biases. No matter how fearful we might be, this remains the defining feature of non-bigoted society.

Exactly. This, for me, is the main point.

In your society, there are no rational safeguards, no prevention. There's only the vague hope that maybe, if we're lucky, the justice system will actually convict the bad guys, instead of letting 99% of them go.

Why the hell should I surrender my boundaries to your utopian daydream?

In your society there aren't, either--that "women" sign doesn't keep rapists out.

 

[TomC]

Everyone has rights with regard to themselves. They do not have the right to strip others of their rights.

What rights are you talking about?

Nobody has a right to use a particular room, making the occupants uncomfortable and unsafe, when there is a near identical facility right next to it.
Tom

And when the occupants of that other room will also have a problem with the situation what are they supposed to do?

You'll need to be a bit more clear.
Who has a problem with what and why?
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What's the person that's half-white/half-black supposed to do in such a world?

Yeah, I never understood that about Jim Crow either. How white did a person have to be to use "White Only" facilities?

But I was just a kid. By the time I noticed anything outside my family that stuff was gone.

Sex is different.
Tom

Most places followed the one-drop rule: One bit of non-white blood made them non-white. I believe Arizona's stupidity was an exception, not the norm. And the way the law was written it didn't accurately distinguish white from non-white, either--multiple "races" were identified by name but strangely "Chinese" was not.

 

[TomC]

In a non-bigoted society, all people are sanctioned based only on their actual behaviours. Not on the behaviours we imagine that they might indulge in, based on filtering their physical appearance through our biases. No matter how fearful we might be, this remains the defining feature of non-bigoted society.

Exactly. This, for me, is the main point.

In your society, there are no rational safeguards, no prevention. There's only the vague hope that maybe, if we're lucky, the justice system will actually convict the bad guys, instead of letting 99% of them go.

Why the hell should I surrender my boundaries to your utopian daydream?

In your society there aren't, either--that "women" sign doesn't keep rapists out.

You're making the perfect the enemy of the good.
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

What's the person that's half-white/half-black supposed to do in such a world?

Yeah, I never understood that about Jim Crow either. How white did a person have to be to use "White Only" facilities?

But I was just a kid. By the time I noticed anything outside my family that stuff was gone.

Sex is different.
Tom

 One-drop rule

The one-drop rule is a legal principle of racial classification that was prominent in the 20th-century United States. It asserted that any person with even one ancestor of black ancestry ("one drop" of "black blood")[1][2] is considered black (Negro or colored in historical terms). It is an example of hypodescent, the automatic assignment of children of a mixed union between different socioeconomic or ethnic groups to the group with the lower status, regardless of proportion of ancestry in different groups.[3]

 

[TomC]

Most places followed the one-drop rule: One bit of non-white blood made them non-white. I believe Arizona's stupidity was an exception, not the norm. And the way the law was written it didn't accurately distinguish white from non-white, either--multiple "races" were identified by name but strangely "Chinese" was not.

I dunno.
Did people carry race purity cards or something?

My best guess is that here in Indiana it was the "Because I said so!" rule.

Like I said, I was a tot when that crap went away. Then we moved to lilly white Greenwood, IND. There simply were no black people there.
Tom

 

[Toni]

As for caregivers - you're just wrong. I have the absolute right to deny services from a male caregiver.

I don't think that's what he's talking about.

He's talking about opposite sex caregivers in public, sex segregated, facilities like restrooms.

Exactly. It's not just the elderly like you're talking about, but parent/child also. When the caregiver doesn't match the person being cared for somebody's going to be in the wrong room.

There is a greater availability of family restrooms these days, that accommodate a variety of situations: not just mommies change baby diapers anymore. And it’s now recognized and accommodated that not only do babies and young children require assistance but so do many older children and adults.

I believe that many/most family gyms such as Y’s offer such spaces.

 

[Toni]

Most places followed the one-drop rule: One bit of non-white blood made them non-white. I believe Arizona's stupidity was an exception, not the norm. And the way the law was written it didn't accurately distinguish white from non-white, either--multiple "races" were identified by name but strangely "Chinese" was not.

I dunno.
Did people carry race purity cards or something?

My best guess is that here in Indiana it was the "Because I said so!" rule.

Like I said, I was a tot when that crap went away. Then we moved to lilly white Greenwood, IND. There simply were no black people there.
Tom

Indiana did not have such segregationist laws, being north of the Mason-Dixon Line.

Not that there were not plenty of racist policies, mostly de facto rather than de jure. I remember the days of extreme controversy about whether or not budding could be used to achieve integration of schools.

Here’s an article about segregation in Indianapolis: https://www.indystar.com/in-depth/n...ication-african-americans-reflect/3017837001/

 

[TomC]

This case is a strawman and shows how weak the anti-trans case actually is.

To what "anti-trans" case are you referring?
I don't have one, nor do I recall anyone on this thread making one.

Making a distinction between sexes and gender identity isn't the same thing.
Tom

 

[Oleg]

Why should women be compelled to participate in male fantasy?

 

[Toni]

Hey Loren - if you want to make your terminally flawed analogy to black rights actually work... all you need to do is to retain race-based segregation, but then make an exception where any white person who self-identifies as black has the legal right to use the black-only spaces.

That is actually a reasonable parallel. But then it shows your analogy for the complete lunacy that it actually is.

What's the person that's half-white/half-black supposed to do in such a world?

(And, no, I will not accept what the law was in Arizona for a while--they're part black so they can't marry a white. They're part white so they can't marry a non-white. The state Supreme Court noted the issue but since it didn't need to be addressed to deal with the question before them they ignored it.)

The answer is: 100% white as far as anybody knew. Some people passed as white, if they could. Some still do.

 

[Toni]

Everyone has rights with regard to themselves. They do not have the right to strip others of their rights.

What rights are you talking about?

Nobody has a right to use a particular room, making the occupants uncomfortable and unsafe, when there is a near identical facility right next to it.
Tom

And when the occupants of that other room will also have a problem with the situation what are they supposed to do?

Well, they’re cis men so what they do is make sure there’s nothing like that in their facilities. Apparently harassment, bearings, threats, etc. If humiliation doesn’t work.

Why do men have to ever be made uncomfortable?

 

[Emily Lake]

As for caregivers - you're just wrong. I have the absolute right to deny services from a male caregiver.

I don't think that's what he's talking about.

He's talking about opposite sex caregivers in public, sex segregated, facilities like restrooms.

Exactly. It's not just the elderly like you're talking about, but parent/child also. When the caregiver doesn't match the person being cared for somebody's going to be in the wrong room.

Honestly people, there's always some room for discretion. And when a caregiver is being respectful and asking people in that room before entering, they're almost always going to be met with acceptance.

You're trying to use cases where bog standard human decency always seems to apply... and acting as if that's some kind of barrier.

Remember that what we're talking about is whether or not the opposite sex has a LEGAL RIGHT to be in that space. Even if they don't have a legal right, they can still get permission. It leaves agency and exceptions in the hands of the people who do have a right to the space.

Look - Your great uncle Nobby doesn't have a LEGAL RIGHT to be in your house. But chances are that he has your permission to be there in many circumstances. Giving Nobby a LEGAL RIGHT robs you - the householder - of the right to kick him out when he's had too much to drink and starts getting annoying. That's the same kind of situation we're talking about here; it's about who has a LEGAL RIGHT to be in a space... where having that right precludes them from being asked or forced to leave.

Giving males the LEGAL RIGHT to be in female-only spaces removes the right of females to ask those males to leave. It makes a situation where no matter how poorly that male is behaving, women are powerless to do anything at all about it. Some male can say "hey I'm trans", walk into the showers, and start leering at every woman there, and the women would have no right whatsoever to demand that he leave. It makes his voyeurism LEGAL for him, and it removes the right of consent from the women he is ogling.

Do you at least get that? Do you understand the power dynamic here? Do you understand what you're actually asking for? Can you at least concede that your desired outcome provides a gigantic gaping loophole for predators to exploit? I mean, if you can at least acknowledge that the loophole does exist, maybe we can start making headway. Right now, you, Poli, Jarhyn, bilby, and a few others are all covering your eyes like children and insisting you can't see the loophole at all.

 

[Emily Lake]

Hey Loren - if you want to make your terminally flawed analogy to black rights actually work... all you need to do is to retain race-based segregation, but then make an exception where any white person who self-identifies as black has the legal right to use the black-only spaces.

That is actually a reasonable parallel. But then it shows your analogy for the complete lunacy that it actually is.

What's the person that's half-white/half-black supposed to do in such a world?

(And, no, I will not accept what the law was in Arizona for a while--they're part black so they can't marry a white. They're part white so they can't marry a non-white. The state Supreme Court noted the issue but since it didn't need to be addressed to deal with the question before them they ignored it.)

Find me a person who is half male and half female, and I will grant them the right to choose. But they actually have to be morphologically half and half - claiming to have a girl mind in a boy body doesn't count, that just plain old mind-body spiritualism dressed up in fancy progressive clothes. I mean ACTUALLY FOR REAL OBSERVIBLY half of one reproductive biological sex anatomically, and half of the other.

 

[Emily Lake]

Everyone has rights with regard to themselves. They do not have the right to strip others of their rights.

What rights are you talking about?

Nobody has a right to use a particular room, making the occupants uncomfortable and unsafe, when there is a near identical facility right next to it.
Tom

And when the occupants of that other room will also have a problem with the situation what are they supposed to do?

So you DO acknowledge that it's the men who are the problem? Men have a problem having a transgender identified male in their room, so you evict him from your man club and foist him off on women.

I suppose I should not be surprised. You are pretty consistent in granting primacy to men in pretty much all situations, and not giving a shit if your approach screws over women.