Split Gendered spaces, split from Drag Shows

[TomC]

I can see that.

I’ve wanted to apologize for some time for creating the perception that I don’t accept trans women or that I find the idea of sharing space with transwomen threatening or repulsive or negative. I don’t. That, for me, is not the issue and never has been.

Toni, you have nothing to apologize for. You have never created that perception. You have been 100% consistent on this point. The people who formed that perception formed it entirely out of the baggage they brought to the discussion themselves.

Agree. Toni has been consistent and very nice about it.

On the other hand, I categorically do not accept transwomen as women. At least not literally. Figuratively, sure. And in almost all social interactions, not a problem. I have no animosity or dislike, there are several transwomen that I know and very much like.

But they are still male. And all of my issues on the topic of policy are very explicitly sex-based. How a person feels, what they wear, that doesn't change their sex.

Oh look...
A chick is talking.


How about you male feminists tell her how wrong she is for upsetting your trans ideological purity.
Tom

 

[Emily Lake]

But the idea of looking to a political faction that treats women as brood-mares -

Also the guys who care about women as a group.

Ah, yes. The sensitive, feminist-minded guys of the right wing. Sure.

So, caring about the opinions of women makes me "the right wing"?

I'm the person you quoted and referred to in your post.
Tom

No, holding and advocating for right wing opinions make you right wing. Pretending to care about female opinions for the sake of an anti-trans argument is just part of the new right wing aesthetic, which will pass whenever it is no longer faddish.

Poisoning the well by framing any objection to granting males free access to women's intimate areas as "right wing" without even bothering to fucking actually think about what you're demanding is some pretty skeezy argument.

All you're doing is declaring without thought that any actual concern about women's safety or dignity, or even their fucking CONSENT is "right wing" and "anti-trans" and implying that it's all just evil bigotry.

Just because YOU don't give a flying fuck about women doesn't mean that anyone who DOES is "right wing".

 

[Emily Lake]

Well, if bathrooms are set up so one denies entry to those who ejaculate sperms, this makes the "sperms" bathroom also the "any" bathroom.

You keep going on about sperm as though that's the issue. It's not!

If the damage and trauma resulting from a man sexually assaulting a woman could be erased with a "morning after" pill, this issue wouldn't be a big deal.
Tom

My point is that there is no boundary separating the awfulness of violation by a penis and violation by a thumb or fingers, when there is no sperm involved.

It IS about sperm, at that point. Sperm is the defining difference here, and whatever diseases whoever has on whatever organ they use to penetrate.

The sperm is what puts the existential difference into the penis.

I just cannot get over a male declaring that the "real" problem that women have with the persistent male violence we've experienced over eons is actually just about sperm, and well gee, if there's no sperm, then women don't have anything at all to be worried about.

Thank you, mr. man, for clarifying what we stupid little girls are "really" concerned about. It's great that you, mr. man, in your infinite knowledge and wisdom, can take the time to set us dumb little harlots straight. tee-hee.

 

[Emily Lake]

Also the guys who care about women as a group.

Ah, yes. The sensitive, feminist-minded guys of the right wing. Sure.

Oh hey, cool way to do "logic" - instead of actually addressing the issue, just poison the well!

Oh, I get Politesse here. Trust me, I feel uncomfortable and somewhat angry knowing that there are some anti-trans individuals who are happy to use my concerns about ensuring the safety and comfort of everyone to further their anti-trans agenda.

But I'll tell ya what (and by ya I mean everyone, not you, Emily): I'll be happy to drop any and all concerns about potential trauma or danger to (any)women in women's locker rooms if men will actually quit assaulting other people, including sexual assault. Also if people would quit blaming the victims of sexual assault for their assaults. That would be an even better, more globally just and fair solution.

No shit, I'm with you on that! 100%

And really, if there were an actual way to grant access to "genuine transwomen" and ONLY "genuine transwomen", I'd have very little objection. I think I'd still hold out on a few topics, particularly around athletics and recognitions that are intended to provide females with a path to full participation in society... but that's a very different qualm altogether.

I think I've said it before, but I'll keep saying it. The problem is not actual transwomen, the problem is 1) males and 2) self-id.

 

[Jarhyn]

What you're not catching is the clever conflation from "sperms" to "penis". One of these poses a risk of creating pregnancies. One of these things poses no more risk to any person than a person with hands that have fingers on them.

Do you... do you really believe that the only reason women don't like getting raped is because they might get pregnant?

That's how it looks to me as well.

Rape is a problem if a man might have a problem. Ya know, child support or something.
Tom

I believe the primary SPECIAL risk that people face specifically from the people you fear more than the others who can still rape you is pregnancy.

Actually believing that they will rape you on the basis that they have a penis is prejudice.

I keep pointing that out.

It's not the penis that's the problem, and pretty much every reasonable person would accept that much.

If you think it's more than sperms, that it is the neurological effects of testosterone (which is the only other method of discernment you can point to, and it clearly is neither necessary or sufficient and so not causal of rape in particular), then you cannot point to the penis there either.

Emily, and others, just want to reject those they think are at best "broken" or "failed" women in the same vein that men seem intent often enough on rejecting such "broken" or "failed" men. They just do it a different way through social attacks rather than through physical intimidation.

Like the one she's doing now, painting trans folks as rapists-probably-enough, even the ones who have no balls!

 

[Emily Lake]

What you're not catching is the clever conflation from "sperms" to "penis". One of these poses a risk of creating pregnancies. One of these things poses no more risk to any person than a person with hands that have fingers on them.

Do you... do you really believe that the only reason women don't like getting raped is because they might get pregnant?

That's how it looks to me as well.

Rape is a problem if a man might have a problem. Ya know, child support or something.
Tom

I believe the primary SPECIAL risk that people face specifically from the people you fear more than the others who can still rape you is pregnancy.

No. Your "belief" is irrelevant as well as incorrect. The actual risk is that STATISTICALLY AND HISTORICALLY SPEAKING it is MALES who commit sexual crimes. This remains true today. And the risk is not "primarily" that pregnancy might occur, and it's stupid of you to insist that that's the concern. The risk is that 95% of sexual assaults are committed by males and 99% of their victims are females.

Actually believing that they will rape you on the basis that they have a penis is prejudice.

I keep pointing that out.

It's not the penis that's the problem, and pretty much every reasonable person would accept that much.

If you think it's more than sperms, that it is the neurological effects of testosterone (which is the only other method of discernment you can point to, and it clearly is neither necessary or sufficient and so not causal of rape in particular), then you cannot point to the penis there either.

Emily, and others, just want to reject those they think are at best "broken" or "failed" women in the same vein that men seem intent often enough on rejecting such "broken" or "failed" men. They just do it a different way through social attacks rather than through physical intimidation.

No. Stop trying to tell me what I think, because you're incredibly bad at it. I am not rejecting "broken or failed women". I am refecting MALES from my female-only spaces. MALES.

Males, no matter how they present, no matter how they identify, are NOT females.

Like the one she's doing now, painting trans folks as rapists-probably-enough, even the ones who have no balls!

Once males get the rate of sexual assaults committed by males down to the same level as sexual assaults committed by females, then I will consider your inane insistence.

As it stands, you're a male, presenting an incredibly male view, all while declaring what females are "really" worried about... because you have decided you know better than we. It's insulting and incredibly privileged.

 

[TomC]

I believe the primary SPECIAL risk that people face specifically from the people you fear more than the others who can still rape you is pregnancy.

OMG
A male wizard is telling female women what is important in the way of sexual assault.

Seriously, do you even listen to yourself?
Tom

 

[Emily Lake]

I believe the primary SPECIAL risk that people face specifically from the people you fear more than the others who can still rape you is pregnancy.

OMG
A male wizard is telling female women what is important in the way of sexual assault.

Seriously, do you even listen to yourself?
Tom

I know, right?

 

[Toni]

What you're not catching is the clever conflation from "sperms" to "penis". One of these poses a risk of creating pregnancies. One of these things poses no more risk to any person than a person with hands that have fingers on them.

Do you... do you really believe that the only reason women don't like getting raped is because they might get pregnant?

That's how it looks to me as well.

Rape is a problem if a man might have a problem. Ya know, child support or something.
Tom

I believe the primary SPECIAL risk that people face specifically from the people you fear more than the others who can still rape you is pregnancy.

Actually believing that they will rape you on the basis that they have a penis is prejudice.

I keep pointing that out.

It's not the penis that's the problem, and pretty much every reasonable person would accept that much.

If you think it's more than sperms, that it is the neurological effects of testosterone (which is the only other method of discernment you can point to, and it clearly is neither necessary or sufficient and so not causal of rape in particular), then you cannot point to the penis there either.

Emily, and others, just want to reject those they think are at best "broken" or "failed" women in the same vein that men seem intent often enough on rejecting such "broken" or "failed" men. They just do it a different way through social attacks rather than through physical intimidation.

Like the one she's doing now, painting trans folks as rapists-probably-enough, even the ones who have no balls!

You can believe what you want but take it from someone who has fought off more than one person intent on raping me and who has intervened to stop a whole line of males from raping someone too drunk to realize her danger: pregnancy did not once cross to my mind.

I’ve been worried plenty of times about pregnancy for lots of reasons but always as a result of mutually consensual sexual activity.

I am 100% certain that being raped is as psychologically and physically damaging whatever your gender or sex. There is potential for disease for any rape victim, should they rapist be infected. Such infection could be permanent try damaging, if it is something incurable. You are right: fear of pregnancy is a fear that only girls and women of reproductive age risk face. But when you are fighting off an assailant, you are not thinking: what if I get pregnant! Although I am certain that if my attacker had been successful, that would have been a very serious fear.

 

[Politesse]

I can see that.

I’ve wanted to apologize for some time for creating the perception that I don’t accept trans women or that I find the idea of sharing space with transwomen threatening or repulsive or negative. I don’t. That, for me, is not the issue and never has been.

Toni, you have nothing to apologize for. You have never created that perception. You have been 100% consistent on this point. The people who formed that perception formed it entirely out of the baggage they brought to the discussion themselves.

Agree. Toni has been consistent and very nice about it.

On the other hand, I categorically do not accept transwomen as women. At least not literally. Figuratively, sure. And in almost all social interactions, not a problem. I have no animosity or dislike, there are several transwomen that I know and very much like.

But they are still male. And all of my issues on the topic of policy are very explicitly sex-based. How a person feels, what they wear, that doesn't change their sex.

Oh look...
A chick is talking.


How about you male feminists tell her how wrong she is for upsetting your trans ideological purity.
Tom

At least I'm not calling anyone a "chick" and using their mere existence as a rhetorical ploy.

 

[Bomb#20]

Agree. Toni has been consistent and very nice about it.

On the other hand, I categorically do not accept transwomen as women. At least not literally. Figuratively, sure. And in almost all social interactions, not a problem. I have no animosity or dislike, there are several transwomen that I know and very much like.

But they are still male. And all of my issues on the topic of policy are very explicitly sex-based. How a person feels, what they wear, that doesn't change their sex.

Oh look...
A chick is talking.

How about you male feminists tell her how wrong she is for upsetting your trans ideological purity.
Tom

At least I'm not calling anyone a "chick" and using their mere existence as a rhetorical ploy.

Oh for the love of god! Tom called her a "chick" sarcastically. He was drawing a parallel between the way male chauvinists dismiss women and the way you dismiss women's issues, Mr. "What women have a right to speak, and which should be silenced?".

 

[Jarhyn]

No. Stop trying to tell me what I think, because you're incredibly bad at it. I am not rejecting "broken or failed women". I am refecting MALES from my female-only spaces. MALES.

Males, no matter how they present, no matter how they identify, are NOT females.

No matter how you or your allies try to reframe your prejudice, it remains just that: prejudice.

You wish to create a separate-but-equal space on a proxy for the sake of a religiously based belief that simple penis ownership is, without any further understanding or mechanism "a rape risk".

It's not.

People with penises are not people without a penis (and again, that's not even examining the fact that what constitutes "a penis" is arbitrary). The problem is, that doesn't tell you anything beyond that they have one fleshy but that happens to be longer than yours in that place.

Of course if you go by skin tone, you can draw an arbitrary but measurable boundary there too. People did once and the people who thought it important thought it just as important as you think the penis is today.

Of course you can declare some arbitrary thing that can be measured, but that doesn't mean measuring it tells you what you want to know about an individual, or that you have any real right to make decisions on who belongs where and why on that basis.

I am not telling you what you think. I don't think you are actually doing any thinking at all. I think I you are rationalizing your prejudicial beliefs and letting rags like the NYPost do your thinking for you, that you are paying attention to the look-squirrel of the penis because I don't think you understand your innermost motivations, nor do most people in most situations, especially not on this topic.

You have provided no evidence or mechanism by which simple penis ownership causes rape, assault, or harassment.

You implied it many times, mostly by implying that people with penises must be kept separated. You have vociferously rejected in fact all attempts to redirect you at the one real thing that may stand as a real issue.

Of course, building your heuristic on who belongs in the bathroom on the basis of something other than "PENIS!" or "BIRTH WITH PENIS!" takes work and thought, and a real desire to treat your neighbors like "people" rather than "EEK! A Penis!"

Those are the realities: that there are particles called "sperms" and "testosterone" and that these are the actual particles that mediate the effects you keep bringing up, by in large. I keep offering that you COULD decide to shift focus but if you do, you lose the closed borders against "penis".

There is a "because people with penises are just worse than people with uteruses" that seems to echo silently from the majority of your posts.

 

[Politesse]

Agree. Toni has been consistent and very nice about it.

On the other hand, I categorically do not accept transwomen as women. At least not literally. Figuratively, sure. And in almost all social interactions, not a problem. I have no animosity or dislike, there are several transwomen that I know and very much like.

But they are still male. And all of my issues on the topic of policy are very explicitly sex-based. How a person feels, what they wear, that doesn't change their sex.

Oh look...
A chick is talking.

How about you male feminists tell her how wrong she is for upsetting your trans ideological purity.
Tom

At least I'm not calling anyone a "chick" and using their mere existence as a rhetorical ploy.

Oh for the love of god! Tom called her a "chick" sarcastically. He was drawing a parallel between the way male chauvinists dismiss women and the way you dismiss women's issues, Mr. "What women have a right to speak, and which should be silenced?".

And yet, I don't call people chicks, or use them as rhetorical devices. Or dismiss women's issues, for that matter. I don't see disagreeing with someone as "dismissal".

 

[Toni]

What you're not catching is the clever conflation from "sperms" to "penis". One of these poses a risk of creating pregnancies. One of these things poses no more risk to any person than a person with hands that have fingers on them.

Do you... do you really believe that the only reason women don't like getting raped is because they might get pregnant?

That's how it looks to me as well.

Rape is a problem if a man might have a problem. Ya know, child support or something.
Tom

I believe the primary SPECIAL risk that people face specifically from the people you fear more than the others who can still rape you is pregnancy.

Actually believing that they will rape you on the basis that they have a penis is prejudice.

I keep pointing that out.

It's not the penis that's the problem, and pretty much every reasonable person would accept that much.

If you think it's more than sperms, that it is the neurological effects of testosterone (which is the only other method of discernment you can point to, and it clearly is neither necessary or sufficient and so not causal of rape in particular), then you cannot point to the penis there either.

Emily, and others, just want to reject those they think are at best "broken" or "failed" women in the same vein that men seem intent often enough on rejecting such "broken" or "failed" men. They just do it a different way through social attacks rather than through physical intimidation.

Like the one she's doing now, painting trans folks as rapists-probably-enough, even the ones who have no balls!

No. It's not the PRIMARY risk. The primary risk is physical and psychological trauma. Potential disease and potential pregnancy are simply added risks. A pregnancy, particularly a forced pregnancy and particularly for a very young individual who has not even finished her own growth is also potentially life threatening and adds additional physical and emotional trauma and the potential for more stigma as more people will be aware of the rape and some will try to force you to carry the pregnancy to term. Which is horrific whether you got pregnant because your birth control failed but even more so if the pregnancy resulted from a rape.

Most rapes do not result in pregnancy. They ALL result in physical and emotional and psychological trauma.

The risk of pregnancy IS however unique to females of reproductive age. A 12 year old boy who is raped will experience a lot of physical and emotional and psychological trauma but will not fear pregnancy. No one will attempt to force a boy to carry a pregnancy to term.

 

[TomC]

And yet, I don't call people chicks, or use them as rhetorical devices. Or dismiss women's issues, for that matter. I don't see disagreeing with someone as "dismissal".

OMG
You're getting offended on @Emily Lake's behalf because I used the word "chick" referring to her? While you simultaneously ignore and dismiss her concerns about personal security and modesty?

Do you even listen to yourself?

You are not just "disagreeing with someone". You are dismissing the feelings and concerns of literally every woman who has posted in this thread.

And most of the men as well.

Maybe the problem isn't everybody else. Maybe the problem is you.
Tom

 

[Politesse]

You're getting offended on @Emily Lake's behalf because I used the word "chick" referring to her? While you simultaneously ignore and dismiss her concerns about personal security and modesty

On Emily's behalf? No, I just don't talk about women that way, and don't think any decent person would. An attitude I adopted from my mother, incidentally. Women aren't objects to be infantilized and "protected" by men, and shouldn't be spoken of as though they are.

When did I dismiss anyone's feelings? I acknowledge that Toni feels uncomfortable about penises.

 

[TomC]

On Emily's behalf? No, I just don't talk about women that way, and don't think any decent person would.

You dismiss them. You ignore their concerns about personal security and modesty.

But you draw the line at using the word "chick"?

Tom

 

[Politesse]

You ignore their concerns about personal security and modesty

I'm not ignoring anything. They absolutely have those concerns. They are valid worries. No, I don't think they can be the basis of policy. They alao have rights aa citizens, and chief among those rights is their ability to pursue their life and goals without being harassed on the basis of their perceived sex. You cannot police bathrooms without violating the personal rights of everyone involved, male and female alike, trans and cis alike.

 

[TomC]

You ignore their concerns about personal security and modesty

I'm not ignoring anything. They absolutely have those concerns. They are valid worries. No, I don't think they can be the basis of policy. They alao have rights aa citizens, and chief among those rights is their ability to pursue their life and goals without being harassed on the basis of their perceived sex.

Who are "they" in this post?
Tom

 

[Toni]

You're getting offended on @Emily Lake's behalf because I used the word "chick" referring to her? While you simultaneously ignore and dismiss her concerns about personal security and modesty

On Emily's behalf? No, I just don't talk about women that way, and don't think any decent person would. An attitude I adopted from my mother, incidentally. Women aren't objects to be infantilized and "protected" by men, and shouldn't be spoken of as though they are.

When did I dismiss anyone's feelings? I acknowledge that Toni feels uncomfortable about penises.

You are very much misrepresenting me and my stated beliefs, thoughts, feelings and concerns.

Your mother sounds like a wonderful person. You are not honoring her and you are disrespecting me specifically when you attribute feelings, beliefs and ideas that are not only not mine but are in direct contradiction of what I have stated, emphatically, many times over in this thread.

I tremendously respect you as a poster and as the human being you seem to be. I understand that you find it upsetting that I present any concerns at all about trans women potentially creating issues in female only spaces.

Trans women wish to use women’s locker rooms because they are women but also because they experience fear and actual danger from men in locker rooms.

I understand the fear and the discomfort.

No one should have to deal with that fear or threat to their safety, especially when in such a vulnerable position.

Including ALL women. Not just trans women.