Split Gendered spaces, split from Drag Shows

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

That would only be an issue if penises weren't permitted there.

 

[TomC]

would only be an issue if penises weren't permitted there.

I kinda find discussions about penises somewhere between unimportant and irrelevant.

While penises can be weaponized, the real problem is the people that they are attached to.
Men.

We are the creepy dangerous sex. It's innate and instinctive. We generally learn better behavior. We learn to suppress and channel those instincts and become civilized, protective even.

But not always. A male stranger is a danger to women in a way that he just isn't to another man. And a trans woman is still a male.
Tom

 

[Toni]

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.

Of course bathroom access is not the cause of someone raping another person. It's simply another access for someone who intends harm.

Until about 5 seconds ago, no one with a penis was allowed to be naked in a woman's locker room. Women are expected to simply discard millennia's worth of data and evidence that naked male appearing bodies in women's only spaces are a signal that the naked male intends them harm and to do it instantaneously because XY chromosomes always know what's best for XX chromosomes.

 

[Toni]

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.

That would only be an issue if penises weren't permitted there.

But that's the entire issue: The expectation by some that women must suddenly and unequivocally without any reservation accept any person in a women's only space, provided they show up there and just assume that they are OK.

Mind you: these are individuals that cannot be in a male only space and expect any safety from men.

The ISSUE is that men, in general, have a long history of violence, including sexual violence against others, especially but not exclusively women.

This is an ISSUE that men seem to have no particular desire to address and indeed, are willing to acknowledge it only to the extent that women are supposed to ignore the threat that men transgressing established boundaries present to women--and that women are of course to blame if they do not also adhere to those same boundaries and insist that men do so.

It's a double blind and one that holds men blameless.

Quel supris

 

[TomC]

This is an ISSUE that(some) men seem to have no particular desire to address and indeed,

Fixed that for you.
Only a few men in this thread are dismissing the feelings and concerns of the women in this thread.
Tom

 

[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.

If only women COULD quit assuming that people with penises are dangerous. Of course not all men and honestly, not most men, at least not most of the time.

Women know that men who transgress against established boundaries are likely to push further.

A man who backs a woman into a corner is unlikely to stop there or to limit it to one time only.
A man who forces a kiss on a woman who protests is unlikely to stop there or to never do it again.
A man who puts his hand on a woman's body in a sexual manner is unlikely to stop there or never do it again.

Oh, there is a level of pain and threat of exposure that will stop many/most of these attacks but it is not always achieved on the first go round.

We learn this all from a very young age. We are socialized to believe that the misunderstanding is ours or that we made a mistake by putting ourselves in that situation. We are socialized to be nice. To be polite. To be accommodating.

And when we grant the transgressor the benefit of the doubt: it was just a misunderstanding. He didn't mean it. He was angry/drunk/confused. I was drunk. Whatever: Then whatever happens next or later is our fault. We should have known better. We should have fought harder. We should have screamed louder.

Nobody is listening now, except to condemn women. How utterly and completely expected.

 

[Toni]

This is an ISSUE that(some) men seem to have no particular desire to address and indeed,

Fixed that for you.
Only a few men in this thread are dismissing the feelings and concerns of the women in this thread.
Tom

NO man is interested in dealing with the issue of men and violence, as far as I can see.

That is unaddressed by every single male in this thread.

 

[Toni]

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.

Really. That's your big take. If women didn't have to risk pregnancy, the playing field would be....equal?

No.

 

[TomC]

This is an ISSUE that(some) men seem to have no particular desire to address and indeed,

Fixed that for you.
Only a few men in this thread are dismissing the feelings and concerns of the women in this thread.
Tom

NO man is interested in dealing with the issue of men and violence, as far as I can see.

That is unaddressed by every single male in this thread.

Really?
You don't know any men interested in dealing with violence?
Tom

 

[Toni]

This is an ISSUE that(some) men seem to have no particular desire to address and indeed,

Fixed that for you.
Only a few men in this thread are dismissing the feelings and concerns of the women in this thread.
Tom

NO man is interested in dealing with the issue of men and violence, as far as I can see.

That is unaddressed by every single male in this thread.

Really?
You don't know any men interested in dealing with violence?
Tom

In this thread, I've brought up the issue and so far, no one has addressed it.

Except you questioning whether I know any men interested in dealing with violence. Which isn't dealing with the issue of male violence but another perceived shortcoming of a woman.

How shocking.

 

[thebeave]

This is an ISSUE that(some) men seem to have no particular desire to address and indeed,

Fixed that for you.
Only a few men in this thread are dismissing the feelings and concerns of the women in this thread.
Tom

NO man is interested in dealing with the issue of men and violence, as far as I can see.

That is unaddressed by every single male in this thread.

Really?
You don't know any men interested in dealing with violence?
Tom

A lot of us men here want to lock up the violent guys, but we get shot down and riduculed by others here who would rather see them set free to commit more violence.

 

[Toni]

This is an ISSUE that(some) men seem to have no particular desire to address and indeed,

Fixed that for you.
Only a few men in this thread are dismissing the feelings and concerns of the women in this thread.
Tom

NO man is interested in dealing with the issue of men and violence, as far as I can see.

That is unaddressed by every single male in this thread.

Really?
You don't know any men interested in dealing with violence?
Tom

A lot of us men want to lock up the violent guys, but we get shot down by others would rather see them set free to commit more violence.

Most violent people are never arrested, much less tried, convicted and sentenced. This is particularly true of sexual assault.

It seems a much better idea to attempt to address violence before it occurs. Why not address the root causes of violence in men? In people, in general, since women are certainly capable of violence, even unprovoked violence.

 

[TomC]

In this thread, I've brought up the issue and so far, no one has addressed it.

Where have you brought up the vague issue of men and violence?

This thread is specifically about the threat of men in women only spaces. Which I have addressed, at length.
Tom

 

[Toni]

In this thread, I've brought up the issue and so far, no one has addressed it.

Where have you brought up the vague issue of men and violence?

This thread is specifically about the threat of men in women only spaces. Which I have addressed, at length.
Tom

I'm not going through all of my posts to highlight and link the instances when I've stated that there is a problem with men and violence and that men seem uninterested in dealing with it. I've stated that, or words to that effect, several times.

But since you have missed it--and likely so has everyone else:

The root problem seems to be that men have a higher propensity towards violence, and sexual violence compared with women. This is an issue that I think that society needs to address in a meaningful way. Why do men seem uninterested in addressing the root causes of violence?

 

[bilby]

A lot of us men here want to lock up the violent guys, but we get shot down and riduculed by others here who would rather

...see them dealt with in ways that were demonstrably effective, rather than forcing them to play a role in pointless and counterproductive security theatre.

But simpletons like easy answers. Just lock up anyone who has ever engaged in violence, and never release them. Easy.

The fact that this would result in around 90% of the population doing life behind bars is a mere inconvenience.




By the way, none of your political opponents want violent people to commit more violence, so any hypothesis about them you have that depends upon that premise is deeply flawed. Failure to accept your stupid and ineffective solutions isn't evidence that people are happy about, or want to encourage, the problems.

 

[TomC]

The root problem seems to be that men have a higher propensity towards violence, and sexual violence compared with women.

I totally agree.
Men have a much higher propensity towards violence. In particular, propensity towards violence towards women. I didn't realize that that's a question. Of course we do.

Sex segregated bathrooms are one way to mitigate this obvious problem. It's no guarantee of anything, much less safety. But it's way better than making the women's room uni-sex. That's the point I'm trying to make.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Of course bathroom access is not the cause of someone raping another person. It's simply another access for someone who intends harm.

Until about 5 seconds ago, no one with a penis was allowed to be naked in a woman's locker room. Women are expected to simply discard millennia's worth of data and evidence that naked male appearing bodies in women's only spaces are a signal that the naked male intends them harm and to do it instantaneously because XY chromosomes always know what's best for XX chromosomes.

What you're missing is that in many places trans bathroom access has been permitted for a while--in some cases quite a while. If it really was a problem why didn't we hear about it when the change happened? We are only hearing about it now--because it's part of the trans-panic disinformation, not a real threat.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If only women COULD quit assuming that people with penises are dangerous. Of course not all men and honestly, not most men, at least not most of the time.

Women know that men who transgress against established boundaries are likely to push further.

A man who backs a woman into a corner is unlikely to stop there or to limit it to one time only.
A man who forces a kiss on a woman who protests is unlikely to stop there or to never do it again.
A man who puts his hand on a woman's body in a sexual manner is unlikely to stop there or never do it again.

Oh, there is a level of pain and threat of exposure that will stop many/most of these attacks but it is not always achieved on the first go round.

We learn this all from a very young age. We are socialized to believe that the misunderstanding is ours or that we made a mistake by putting ourselves in that situation. We are socialized to be nice. To be polite. To be accommodating.

And when we grant the transgressor the benefit of the doubt: it was just a misunderstanding. He didn't mean it. He was angry/drunk/confused. I was drunk. Whatever: Then whatever happens next or later is our fault. We should have known better. We should have fought harder. We should have screamed louder.

Nobody is listening now, except to condemn women. How utterly and completely expected.

You seeing this as an encroachment doesn't make it so.

I do agree that those who cross the line will do so again and I'll cheer when the scumbag picks on the wrong woman and gets handed his ass.

However, I do not see this as crossing a line, but rather redefining a line. The line isn't being crossed.

 

[Toni]

If only women COULD quit assuming that people with penises are dangerous. Of course not all men and honestly, not most men, at least not most of the time.

Women know that men who transgress against established boundaries are likely to push further.

A man who backs a woman into a corner is unlikely to stop there or to limit it to one time only.
A man who forces a kiss on a woman who protests is unlikely to stop there or to never do it again.
A man who puts his hand on a woman's body in a sexual manner is unlikely to stop there or never do it again.

Oh, there is a level of pain and threat of exposure that will stop many/most of these attacks but it is not always achieved on the first go round.

We learn this all from a very young age. We are socialized to believe that the misunderstanding is ours or that we made a mistake by putting ourselves in that situation. We are socialized to be nice. To be polite. To be accommodating.

And when we grant the transgressor the benefit of the doubt: it was just a misunderstanding. He didn't mean it. He was angry/drunk/confused. I was drunk. Whatever: Then whatever happens next or later is our fault. We should have known better. We should have fought harder. We should have screamed louder.

Nobody is listening now, except to condemn women. How utterly and completely expected.

You seeing this as an encroachment doesn't make it so.

I do agree that those who cross the line will do so again and I'll cheer when the scumbag picks on the wrong woman and gets handed his ass.

However, I do not see this as crossing a line, but rather redefining a line. The line isn't being crossed.

Yes, it IS redefining a line in a way that can make women and girls less safe and certainly will result in some girls and women not accessing gym space and some programs and opportunities.

The fact that you don’t see it that way does not make it less harmful to women.

I am not surprised that you don’t see it that way: It doesn’t have any effect or potential effect on you personally so: no problem. For you.

 

[Toni]

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.

Of course bathroom access is not the cause of someone raping another person. It's simply another access for someone who intends harm.

Until about 5 seconds ago, no one with a penis was allowed to be naked in a woman's locker room. Women are expected to simply discard millennia's worth of data and evidence that naked male appearing bodies in women's only spaces are a signal that the naked male intends them harm and to do it instantaneously because XY chromosomes always know what's best for XX chromosomes.

What you're missing is that in many places trans bathroom access has been permitted for a while--in some cases quite a while. If it really was a problem why didn't we hear about it when the change happened? We are only hearing about it now--because it's part of the trans-panic disinformation, not a real threat.

Apparently it is a problem in some places. That you never heard of it a long time ago is not any real indication that it was a priblens long time ago. It may never have made the news, especially before the 24/7 news cycle. Or it may never have hit your radar.

Media is a funny thing. Once outlet reports on something then there will be a dozen similar stories.