Split Gendered spaces, split from Drag Shows

[TomC]

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

Not just you.
Every other woman who has expressed an opinion on this thread.
As well as most of the men.

Like most of the people in all of American society.
Tom

 

[Politesse]

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

On what matter have I misrepresented you?

 

[Toni]

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

On what matter have I misrepresented you?

You ‘acknowledged’ that I ‘feel uncomfortable about penises.’

I have no such discomfort. I like penises, one in particular. I’m very much in favor of penises. Again, one in particular.

If you wish to acknowledge me, then I would rather you acknowledge that I DO have concerns for the safety and security of all girls and women in public locker rooms. Cis and trans, whatever their orientation or the configuration of their genitals. Your pseudo acknowledgment of me above is a gross misrepresentation, and the opposite of acknowledgement.

You don’t have to share that concern. I think it’s a shame that you cannot see my point, but you don’t have to share my concern or even see my point. But don’t misrepresent me.

If I understand this correctly, trans women prefer women’s locker rooms because they are women and because they have legitimate fears and concerns about using the same locker room and shower as men and boys use.

So do cis women.

 

[Bomb#20]

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

You seem curiously more concerned with literary style than with substance. Do you think Emily perceives you to be respectful of women?

, or use them as rhetorical devices.

The hell you don't.

Or dismiss women's issues, for that matter. I don't see disagreeing with someone as "dismissal".

"What women have a right to speak, and which should be silenced?" was not "disagreeing with someone". It was dismissing Toni; and it was using her as a rhetorical device. You violated the Categorical Imperative -- you used Toni as a mere means to an end.

As you know perfectly well, Toni has neither advocated silencing transwomen nor attempted to do so in any way. She disagreed with you; she disagreed with currently prevailing trans ideology; being disagreed with does not silence people. She refuted you; she refuted currently prevailing trans ideology; being refuted does not silence people. If she gets her way it will take more than self-ID for transwomen to be allowed into women's intimate spaces, and if she gets her way it will be because America is a democracy and most of us agree with her about that policy; being outvoted does not silence people. You did not have a legitimate reason to say what you said. You chose to falsely insinuate that Toni's position on trans issues silences transwomen, and you did it for rhetorical purposes. You strawmanned her. You do not strawman a person whose argument you are trying to come to grips with. You do not strawman a person in order to explain why you disagree with her. To strawman a person is to dismiss her argument and dismiss her.

 

[Toni]

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

You seem curiously more concerned with literary style than with substance. Do you think Emily perceives you to be respectful of women?

, or use them as rhetorical devices.

The hell you don't.

Or dismiss women's issues, for that matter. I don't see disagreeing with someone as "dismissal".

"What women have a right to speak, and which should be silenced?" was not "disagreeing with someone". It was dismissing Toni; and it was using her as a rhetorical device. You violated the Categorical Imperative -- you used Toni as a mere means to an end.

As you know perfectly well, Toni has neither advocated silencing transwomen nor attempted to do so in any way. She disagreed with you; she disagreed with currently prevailing trans ideology; being disagreed with does not silence people. She refuted you; she refuted currently prevailing trans ideology; being refuted does not silence people. If she gets her way it will take more than self-ID for transwomen to be allowed into women's intimate spaces, and if she gets her way it will be because America is a democracy and most of us agree with her about that policy; being outvoted does not silence people. You did not have a legitimate reason to say what you said. You chose to falsely insinuate that Toni's position on trans issues silences transwomen, and you did it for rhetorical purposes. You strawmanned her. You do not strawman a person whose argument you are trying to come to grips with. You do not strawman a person in order to explain why you disagree with her. To strawman a person is to dismiss her argument and dismiss her.

Wait a minute: You're also misrepresenting me, perhaps inadvertently conflating what I have written with what Emily Lake has written or perhaps someone else altogether.

I don't think I've refuted Politesse, except to point out an error in misrepresenting my supposed discomfort around penises.

I haven't proposed anything other than 1) Universal individual stalls for all locker room/shower situations in order to avoid discriminating against anyone and 2) To state that women and girls do have reason to be concerned and uncomfortable and perhaps even afraid when they unexpectedly find a naked stranger with a penis in the shower next to them. So, yes, I've asked for some recognition of the validity of the instinctive and also conditioned fears attached to an apparently male person in a female space when one is not dressed and not expecting such a person to be there. 3) I've proposed some empathy and compassion for women and I do not exclude trans women (or trans men or any person) from that empathy and compassion.

I've asked HOW women are supposed to know that the person standing next to them is a trans woman and not a creepy guy who may be dangerous and I've gotten....crickets and some false accusations.

Aside from stating emphatically that this is a real concern for women and that I am genuinely concerned that everyone: male, female, cis, trans be safe and secure and feel safe and secure and comfortable when they are using public facilities.

I don't want ANYONE to be hurt or frightened or made to feel uncomfortable or unsafe.

It is absolutely unrealistic and unfair to expect that most people in a women's locker room will immediately recognize that a trans woman is female, at least by any means I know of. I certainly don't expect anyone to go around with a huge sign or tattoo on their forehead or anything like that.

I have pointed out and I will again: If men were not violent towards women, this would likely be a total non-issue. Unfortunately a large portion of women and girls will experience sexual assault and/or rape by a male person. By women and girls, I am including trans individuals as well.

Of course men are uninterested in discussing why some men are so violent towards others or why women (cis, trans) have reason to fear violence at the hands of men.

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice: What I tell you three times is true."

We all understand that you have an unlimited capacity to repeat your trumped-up accusation, but saying it three times or three million times doesn't make it true. Tom is not a right-winger and you do not have a reason to suppose he is.

You are thinking like a medieval Christian bigot. There are lots of different worldviews that are skeptical of one or another of your opinions, and the circumstance that you regard infidels as interchangeable parts and label us all "right wing" does not constrain us to agree among ourselves about much of anything -- it certainly doesn't constrain us to agree with the archetypal insensitive male-chauvinist-pig right-winger of your self-congratulatory imagination who treats women as brood-mares. When you impute that guy's cartoon character traits to a real person just because he disputed some unscientific opinion your ideology takes on faith, you are not presenting a substantive case. You are stereotyping; and you are using an ad hominem argument.

I don't recall claiming that the right wing is united in opinion.

Yeah, people usually don't recall claiming the unspoken premises their arguments tacitly rely on.

Also the guys who care about women as a group.

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

You ridiculed Tom's claim to be one of the group of guys who care about women, because you categorize him as a member of the right wing and you stereotype the people you consider right wing as all being anti-feminist. Your argument was blatantly tacitly relying on the premise that right wingers are united in not caring about women.

"Right" and "Left" are incredibly vague and general labels, barely more than metaphors, and the Right is perhaps more divided at present than it has ever been.

So you know your tacit premise isn't really true. And yet you relied on it. People do that a lot -- the subconscious mind often carelessly follows well-worn ruts the conscious mind knows to be counterproductive.

But feminism is not a true priority for it, now or in the past.

For "it", the man's subconscious says, as though "Right" were one identifiable thing, rather than the incredibly vague and general metaphorical label the man's conscious mind just said it was.

(And that's not even getting into your casual conflation of caring about women with feminism. Men caring enough about women to protect women from other men has always been a major current within traditional male supremacy -- it's considered noblesse oblige: what decent men have to do on behalf of women to deserve the lordly status of man. Just because it's patronizing as hell doesn't mean it isn't an actual phenomenon.)

And if you want to talk science, you're to need to do that in the language of empirical evidence, not political bluster.

The reason you write Tom off as one of those wretched right-wingers, who evidently looks to the right wing for views on women, and who therefore can't possibly actually care about them, and who therefore deserves ridicule, appears to be because he expressed skepticism about a couple of your beliefs: that transwomen are women and that transwomen have the right to use the ladies' room. And those beliefs of yours appear to be lacking in scientific support. So what the heck is the difference between inferring a Jew is a Satan-worshiper because she's skeptical of Christians' unscientific belief that Jesus was the Messiah, and inferring Tom is a right-winger because he's skeptical of some unscientific articles you take on faith? Right, left, center, off to some side, vague metaphoric label, whatever: why shouldn't everyone be skeptical of unscientific claims? Or do you have empirical evidence that transwomen are women and have the right to use the ladies' room?

 

[Bomb#20]

Wait a minute: You're also misrepresenting me, perhaps inadvertently conflating what I have written with what Emily Lake has written or perhaps someone else altogether.

I don't see how. What view do you think I've attributed to you?

I don't think I've refuted Politesse, except to point out an error in misrepresenting my supposed discomfort around penises.

I didn't say you think you refuted him. I think you refuted him. I think your posts overall completely demolish his posts overall; but I get that you don't see it that way. You've shown the patience of a saint with him; I'm less willing to put up with his nonsense and his abuse of other posters.

I haven't proposed anything other than 1) Universal individual stalls ...
I have pointed out and I will again: If men were not violent towards women, this would likely be a total non-issue. Unfortunately a large portion of women and girls will experience sexual assault and/or rape by a male person. By women and girls, I am including trans individuals as well. ...

I did not mean to imply you proposed more than that, and I'm unclear on where you think I did; but if I implied you did I apologize.

 

[Politesse]

I've asked HOW women are supposed to know that the person standing next to them is a trans woman and not a creepy guy who may be dangerous

What is your answer to this question? You keep asking it. I don't think there's an answer; there is no good way to know that a stranger is not dangerous. So what should a person do if they find they are unsure of a stranger's intentions?

 

[Jarhyn]

No. It's not the PRIMARY risk

Read the text: primary special risk, which is to say it's the primary risk that exists specifically from penis vs, say, hands.

 

[Jarhyn]

I've asked HOW women are supposed to know that the person standing next to them is a trans woman and not a creepy guy who may be dangerous

What is your answer to this question? You keep asking it. I don't think there's an answer; there is no good way to know that a stranger is not dangerous. So what should a person do if they find they are unsure of a stranger's intentions?

I think there's a pretty easy way: quit assuming all people with penises are creepy or dangerous.

A slightly more fiddly way is anyone who undergoes a medical procedure that makes it so they no longer produce sperm in their ejaculate can get a card validating that fact, and those without the hardware to produce sperms can get one without effort.

This will largely eliminate the vast majority of special danger presented.

At any rate, you can't validate that the person WITHOUT a penis isn't a creep. At best you can validate that they don't produce sperm. If they harass you in the bathroom the solution is to find building security or HR and get them ejected from the building and/or fired for harassment.

It allows someone to validate that they do not present the special risk of ejaculation of sperms, while denying information about the nature of their genitals beyond the one pertinent fact.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Penises are far more able to transmit disease than fingers.

Are they? I'm pretty sure I acquire more and far more dangerous diseases from my fingers than via my penis.

Because you put your fingers more places than you put your penis. Penises have mucous membranes (inside the urethra) and they are far more porous to disease than skin. And you almost never acquire infections from your fingers--they just act as a transfer medium to move infection from a surface to a part of the body lacking a good skin layer.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Time to Think by Hannah Barnes review – what went wrong at Gids?

The BBC Newsnight reporter’s investigation into the Tavistock’s gender identity clinic for children makes disturbing reading

www.theguardian.com

Clinicians at Gids insisted the effects of these drugs were reversible; that taking them would reduce the distress experienced by gender dysphoric children; and that there was no causality between starting hormone blockers and going on to take cross-sex hormones (the latter are taken by adults who want fully to transition). Unfortunately, none of these things were true. Such drugs do have severe side effects, and while the causality between blockers and cross-sex hormones cannot be proven – all the studies into them have been designed without a control group – 98% of children who take the first go on to take the latter. Most seriously of all, as Gids’ own research suggested, they do not appear to lead to any improvement in children’s psychological wellbeing.

And, once again a case of crap data.

Yes, 98% go on to hormones. And ice cream sales cause rape. (The classic example of a strong correlation that is really a case of both things being influenced by a third factor.)

You should probably actually read the CASS report.

Others have been reporting that it's bad data, I see no reason to read it.

And you're still saying ice cream sales cause rape.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You still haven't presented any solution for the problem of the female-presenting person with a penis risking their life by going into a men's room in redneck territory.

Let me know when penis presenting humans are in more danger in the male restrooms than humans with vaginas are with males in the restroom.

Males are far more dangerous to females than females are to males.
Are you really unable to understand that?
Tom

He understands, he just doesn't care.

This isn't a new position for Loren. He's been pretty consistent about viewing women as second-class. Pretty much since I first joined the very original IIDB back in... 2002? I don't even know anymore.

No. I'm for equality, I don't agree with your putting women above men.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I see at least two significant differences: there is no history of black people attacking white people as there is a history of make people attacking female people. I truly believe that transwomen ARE women. I also know that it would be impossible for almost all women and girls to see an individual with a penis and not assume that person is male and quite possibly has an intention to do them harm.

No history? The crime data says otherwise. Sure, it's actually socioeconomic but you have no way to quickly determine that. Meanwhile, the notion that the person with the penis poses an increased risk has not been supported by the data.

95% of sexual offenses are committed by the people with the penises. 99% of the victims of sexual offenses are the people with vaginas.

No... there's no increased risk at all!

Overall, yes--but we have no quality evidence of bathroom access being a cause. The one piece of evidence that has been presented lumped in voyeurism--in that situation a claim that can't be proven (voyeurism is normally proven by someone being where they shouldn't be.) When you see bad data lumped in to prove something that almost always means you can't prove it without the bad data--and thus the allegation is most likely false.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You still haven't presented any solution for the problem of the female-presenting person with a penis risking their life by going into a men's room in redneck territory.

Let me know when penis presenting humans are in more danger in the male restrooms than humans with vaginas are with males in the restroom.

Males are far more dangerous to females than females are to males.
Are you really unable to understand that?
Tom

I don't have any good answer for male-presenting with vaginas. That's a problem either way.

Wait... just wait... there's a problem with the male-presenting people who have vaginas... but there's NO PROBLEM AT ALL with the female-presenting(ish) people with penises?

One risks violence in either restroom, the other doesn't.

 

[Toni]

I've asked HOW women are supposed to know that the person standing next to them is a trans woman and not a creepy guy who may be dangerous

What is your answer to this question? You keep asking it. I don't think there's an answer; there is no good way to know that a stranger is not dangerous. So what should a person do if they find they are unsure of a stranger's intentions?

I think there's a pretty easy way: quit assuming all people with penises are creepy or dangerous.

A slightly more fiddly way is anyone who undergoes a medical procedure that makes it so they no longer produce sperm in their ejaculate can get a card validating that fact, and those without the hardware to produce sperms can get one without effort.

This will largely eliminate the vast majority of special danger presented.

At any rate, you can't validate that the person WITHOUT a penis isn't a creep. At best you can validate that they don't produce sperm. If they harass you in the bathroom the solution is to find building security or HR and get them ejected from the building and/or fired for harassment.

It allows someone to validate that they do not present the special risk of ejaculation of sperms, while denying information about the nature of their genitals beyond the one pertinent fact.

How women would love to be able to assume that a naked person with a penis in a women's only space is not a potential threat!

Do you not realize that most of the people who commit rapes and sexual assaults and molestations are known to the victims? Were in positions where they were trusted and intimate family members of people within the circle of close friends or at least acquaintances? Or teachers or coaches or preachers?

Yes, women are sometimes the perpetrators of molestation, rape, sexual assault. Against other women, against men, against children. It's just much less prevalent.

 

[TomC]

No. I'm for equality, I don't agree with your putting women above men.

I don't think she's doing that.
She's recognizing and reacting to sexual dimorphism among humans. Like it or not, men(as a group) are more creepy and dangerous than women in that regard.
Tom

 

[thebeave]

You still haven't presented any solution for the problem of the female-presenting person with a penis risking their life by going into a men's room in redneck territory.

Let me know when penis presenting humans are in more danger in the male restrooms than humans with vaginas are with males in the restroom.

Males are far more dangerous to females than females are to males.
Are you really unable to understand that?
Tom

He understands, he just doesn't care.

This isn't a new position for Loren. He's been pretty consistent about viewing women as second-class. Pretty much since I first joined the very original IIDB back in... 2002? I don't even know anymore.

No. I'm for equality, I don't agree with your putting women above men.

I would generally agree with this statement in a one-on-one case, but in the situation here, you're putting the needs of one man (or trans woman, if you prefer) above the needs of many, many women. With many problems, you have a choice of a "good" solution or a "bad" solution. With others, you only have a choice between a "not good" and a "even more not good" solution. You seem to be choosing the "even more not good" solution over the "not good" solution.

 

[thebeave]

You still haven't presented any solution for the problem of the female-presenting person with a penis risking their life by going into a men's room in redneck territory.

Let me know when penis presenting humans are in more danger in the male restrooms than humans with vaginas are with males in the restroom.

Males are far more dangerous to females than females are to males.
Are you really unable to understand that?
Tom

I don't have any good answer for male-presenting with vaginas. That's a problem either way.

Wait... just wait... there's a problem with the male-presenting people who have vaginas... but there's NO PROBLEM AT ALL with the female-presenting(ish) people with penises?

One risks violence in either restroom, the other doesn't.

How so? You're saying a woman wouldn't/couldn't get violent with a naked male/transwoman suddenly showing up in her shower space? I could easily see a woman get startled and instinctively give the guy a swift in the nuts, and I wouldn't blame her. And if she's had some self defense training, well...I would sure not want to be in that guys shoes.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How women would love to be able to assume that a naked person with a penis in a women's only space is not a potential threat!

Do you not realize that most of the people who commit rapes and sexual assaults and molestations are known to the victims? Were in positions where they were trusted and intimate family members of people within the circle of close friends or at least acquaintances? Or teachers or coaches or preachers?

Yes, women are sometimes the perpetrators of molestation, rape, sexual assault. Against other women, against men, against children. It's just much less prevalent.

You have had bad experiences with penises. How many have occurred due to a penis in a female-only space, though??