Split Gendered spaces, split from Drag Shows

[Emily Lake]

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.

Somehow I'm not all that riled by Tom's sarcasm... and your jumping up to lament his oh-so-sexist use of the term "chick" doesn't ameliorate me to your position.

 

[Emily Lake]

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".

STOP TELLING ME WHAT I THINK

You are wrong.

First, it's not "separate but equal". FFS, it's separate because not equal.

Second, it's not religious in nature.
Third, the people with the penises do the rape and a massively higher rate than the people with the uteruses, and their victims are almost exclusively the people with the uteruses.

Lastly... your understanding of biology is so incredibly flawed I don't even know where to begin. Honestly, you're not even wrong. You're basing your entire argument on a fantasy fueled by poorly written science fiction.

 

[Emily Lake]

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".

As a woman, I rather feel like you are 100% dismissing women's concerns and issues. You completely disregard what I and Toni have said, you dismiss our concerns and our experiences, and you invariably favor the privileging of a subset of males at the expense of women. And you simply do not seem to give a flying fuck about the harm that befalls women, as long as those males that you deem insufficiently manly don't get their feelings hurt.

 

[Emily Lake]

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

This entire exchange has me rolling.

Seriously, Poli calling Tom out on the sarcastic use of the term "chick" as if that's some horrendous sin... all while taking the position that women shouldn't have a right to their sexual and bodily boundaries, the right to deny access to males who want to see them naked (provided those males say the right magical phrase and identify as "women" where "women" is an undefined solipsistic masterpiece of nonsense).

I mean, seriously, Poli. Why the fuck do you think you're in a position to decide what is offensive to women? Who do you think you are to decide that somehow I should be offended by the sarcastic use of "chick"? This is so much male privilege I don't even know where to start.

 

[Jarhyn]

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".

STOP TELLING ME WHAT I THINK

You are wrong.

First, it's not "separate but equal". FFS, it's separate because not equal.

Second, it's not religious in nature.
Third, the people with the penises do the rape and a massively higher rate than the people with the uteruses, and their victims are almost exclusively the people with the uteruses.

Lastly... your understanding of biology is so incredibly flawed I don't even know where to begin. Honestly, you're not even wrong. You're basing your entire argument on a fantasy fueled by poorly written science fiction.

I'm not telling you what you think. I'm making factual observations.

You consistently express the wish to separate spaces.

You claim that this is an equal treatment despite separation. Take your fascist better-than-you philosophy and cram it.

Your beliefs that people with a penis present special danger of conduct against your person are purely religious since the penis itself mediates neither behavior nor the production of sperm.

There's something you could ask for but do not ask for, but resist asking for for reasons you have thus far failed to articulate.

I find it likely, but not entirely certain, that this is because you like so many others merely wish to "lesser" someone after such a long and unfortunate history of women (including trans women) being treated as "lesser".

 

[Emily Lake]

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?

You know, there are many topics on which you and I disagree, but I am always impressed by the clarity with which you write, and the employment of logic and reason in your approach.

 

[Emily Lake]

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?

Continue to expect that males use male facilities. It's genuinely not that difficult.

If they successfully pass as female, there will not be a problem.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Read the statistics: predominant risk, which is to say that males (the half of the human species that has penises, testicles, and usually generates sperm that they push through their vas deferens, lubricate with juice from their prostate, and eject out of their genito-urethral tract) are statistically a risk to females (the half of the human species that generally has ovaries, releases eggs through their fallopian tubes, which pass into their uterus, and sometimes embed there, otherwise get expelled along with menstrual blood via the cervix and the vagina).

 

[Emily Lake]

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

As soon as you and your fellow males get the levels of violence, aggression, and sexual assault down to the same level as evidenced by the ovarians, I will consider it.

Until then, no. You're blithely demanding that we forego any reasonable precautions to protect ourselves so that a subset of your fellow men can have access to us in our intimate spaces against our will.

No.

 

[Emily Lake]

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

Which "others" have said so?

Honestly, I don't think you even know what the fuck the CASS report is, I think you're just handwaving it away so you don't have to be bothered to challenge your own assumptions.

 

[Emily Lake]

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

Your "equality" is the "equality" that removes wheelchair ramps and disabled stalls.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Congratulations for acknowledging that you're all for decriminalizing voyeurism! Yay, what a great win for women that men are now LEGALLY allowed to engage in voyeurism! Hooray for "equality"!

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Which do you think is which?

 

[TomC]

Continue to expect that males use male facilities. It's genuinely not that difficult.

If they successfully pass as female, there will not be a problem.

Exactly.
Insisting on male women using male restrooms does cause discomfort for the tiny percentage of the male population who identify as women. And frankly, they have a tough road as it is. I don't want to make anything worse for them without a darned good reason.
But the discomfort of the bulk of female women qualifies as a darned good reason.
Pretending that this issue is as irrational as Jim Crow laws is ridiculous.
Tom

 

[Emily Lake]

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??

One of mine.

Which is entirely irrelevant.

Let's start with some reality, a statistical fact. Men are larger, stronger, more aggressive, and more prone to violence and sexual assault than women. Note that this does not say "all men". Also note that it does not exclude all women. But the data on this is incontrovertible. The overwhelming majority of violence across the board is committed by men. And when it comes to sexual assault, 99% of the perpetrators are male, and 95% of their victims are female.

We might wish it weren't so, but wishes don't determine reality. This is what is.

Now then. Given that the "penis people" are statistically more likely to hurt the "ovary people" than vice versa, and given that 80% of women in the US have been subjected to a sexual assault, and one in four has been the victim of a completed or attempted rape...

Why on earth do you think it makes any whit of sense to demand that we relinquish one of the very few spaces in which we are currently reasonably safe from male aggression? You're seriously arguing that "Well hey, nobody has ever robbed your house, so you should have no problem leaving your doors unlocked". It's seriously short-sighted and well, completely irrational.

Do you seriously think women are dumb? Do you think we're all just a bunch of hysterical empty-heads who are overreacting about something that's no big deal? Or are you just genuinely not give a fuck?

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

So your solution is to make it LEGAL for penises to be there... then women have no choice in the matter and any male who wants to gets to ogle her while she's naked.

Hooray for progress! Let's decriminalize even more male sexual aggression! What could go wrong?

 

[Emily Lake]

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

It's a losing strategy. And I'm done with it. I'm done being "nice" in order to accommodate the feelings of men. I'm going to treat men the same way that men treat other men.

I'm old enough now that whether or not I hurt some dude's feelings just doesn't matter to me. Especially not when we're talking about policies that increase the risk of harm to women. Playing nice will only get us hurt even more.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Tom has acknowledged that men are dangerous and creepy and prone to violence. So unless you're expecting him to single-handedly come up with a solution to male violence across the globe, I'd say he is interested in dealing with it within the context of this discussion.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

In my heart, I'm with you.

In my brain, I don't think it's possible. Not to the degree necessary to make a meaningful difference in the statistics of male violence against women and children. It's a necessary effect of testosterone... and testosterone is a necessary component for the continuation of the species. This isn't unique to humans, it's observable throughout the vast majority of the mammalian class. There are a very few exceptions - hyenas being one of them. But that's only achieved by female hyenas being more aggressive and sexually exploitative than the males.

I honestly don't see how it can be accomplished without fundamentally altering the nature and evolution of humans.

So I tend to be a lot more focused on preventive measures for women and children, and a judicial system that punishes transgressors fairly.

 

[Derec]

So your solution is to make it LEGAL for penises to be there...

then women have no choice in the matter and any male who wants to gets to ogle her while she's naked.
Hooray for progress! Let's decriminalize even more male sexual aggression! What could go wrong?

In many parts Europe coed nude saunas are common. Without some epidemic of sexual assault.