Split Gendered spaces, split from Drag Shows

[TomC]

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

Personally, I'd be fine with that.

But I'm way over at the nudist end of the spectrum, by U.S. standards. I consider clothing very overrated.

Not everyone shares my attitude towards the human body. I recognize that. So, despite it being very irrational to do so, I wear swim trunks at the city pool. I don't sit around my yard nude. I respect the feelings of others, even when I don't share them.
Tom

 

[Toni]

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.

Yes. But I don’t think ( pre-teen through high school) girls’ youth sports teams are showering in co-Ed saunas. And everyone there knows that they are co-Ed.

Which is different than going into a woman’s locker room and finding a naked stranger with a penis. It’s not expected and it is seen as an indication of potential danger. THAT is the issue for me: not that trans women are unacceptable persons or that they are likely to pose a danger or threat to girls and women. They are likely to be perceived as dangerous which surely would be traumatic for both the trans women and other girls and women, some of whom have already been traumatized by various types of sexual assaults, usually in places they thought they would be safe.

 

[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.

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.

You are more optimistic than I am.

 

[TomC]

You are more optimistic than I am.

Optimistic about what, exactly?

I apologize if I missed something in your posts. I don't remember you trying to change the subject from sex segregated places for people to do personal business in public facilities to male violence as a concept.

I do have opinions on that subject as well. But it does seem a big derail.
Tom

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

First - because news reporting that shows the problems with the approach are deemed "transphobic", or as you put it "trans-panic" and are more or less sqaushed

Second - because even when it IS reported, it gets framed as being "trans panic disinformation" or gets downplayed as exceptions... or as you yourself have implied, something that's unavoidable because there was never anything to protect women anyway

Third - because THESE POLICIES HAVE DECRIMNALIZED VOYEURISM AND EXHIBITIONISM so even though they do happen, they're now legally supported.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Of course, you won't bat an eye at the dozens of women who aren't "the wrong woman" and cannot hand asses to males who are bigger, stronger, and more violent than them.

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

Men are "redefining" what lines women are "allowed" to have. Seriously, how do you not see this? You're literally overriding women's boundaries for the convenience of males. Some of those males might be transgender, but there's certainly no realistic requirement that they be so, and no way at all to enforce that they are. Either way it doesn't matter - why do you think you get to "redefine" our boundaries against our will?

 

[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.

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

Nah, you're not. You're smearing your own post-modernist beliefs all over it, and making a buttload of assumptions in the mix.

You consistently express the wish to separate spaces.

This is silly. I want to RETAIN spaces that are ALREADY SEPARATED, because I think the separation is for good reason.

Hey - did you know that the UN deems sex-specific toileting and bathing facilities to be a necessity for developing countries? It's really the only way they know that can allow girls to get an education safely. And it turns out that the fastest and most sure road to development is to educate girls and women.

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.

Oh FFS. You keep sticking in your own ideological claptrap here. It's something that is 100% unique to you. Realistically, it's not the sperm at all, it's the testosterone. And well, I'm sorry, but evolution doesn't really care what Wizard Jarhyn thinks about how things "ought to work". In reality, testosterone is a pretty foundational element of the male half of the species. And there are many infertile men out there with plenty of testosterone raging around in their systems.

You have come to a personal belief about how sperm impacts you and your personality. And that's fine, as far as it's personal. You do you. But please stop pushing your weird isolation of sperm from male into an otherwise rational discussion.

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.

Give me a hint. I can't read your mind. Or you know, you could just volunteer whatever information you think is actually pertinent here. What a novel idea.

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".

Yeah, you're simply wrong. I don't think transwomen are lesser. I observe that transwomen are male.

 

[TomC]

Go Emily.
Apparently, some guys on this forum have run into a woman who will "hand them their asses".

Let's hear that cheer Loren.
Tom

 

[Emily Lake]

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

Personally, I'd be fine with that.

But I'm way over at the nudist end of the spectrum, by U.S. standards. I consider clothing very overrated.

Not everyone shares my attitude towards the human body. I recognize that. So, despite it being very irrational to do so, I wear swim trunks at the city pool. I don't sit around my yard nude. I respect the feelings of others, even when I don't share them.
Tom

There's also a matter of context and culture involved. Yes, a lot of places in europe have coed nude saunas, and coed nude beaches, and it's true that there's not an explosion of misbehavior.

But those are spaces where mixed sex use is traditional and is expected. It's not like one day Sweden woke up and said "Hey, I know, let's make the saunas unisex!" They already were, and had been for a long time. They're also voluntary, and everyone involved knows well ahead of time that they are unisex. Nobody is going to be caught unaware.

Additionally, those spaces are not unchaperoned. There is staff present in various forms, and an existing level of sentinel effect in place. That's something that would not be the case for all of the currently single-sex facilities in the US.

Furthermore, most of europe still has single sex restrooms and shower rooms available all over the place. The existence of some specific mixed-sex cultural traditions doesn't make the other single-sex provisions disappear.

Realistically, the US has nudist beaches and camps already, which are mixed sex. I suspect we've got some mixed sex saunas as well. But that's not an argument for all facilities being made mixed sex. It's the difference between voluntary and obligatory.

 

[Emily Lake]

Go Emily.
Apparently, some guys on this forum have run into a woman who will "hand them their asses".

Let's hear that cheer Loren.
Tom

At 5'2" and nearing 50... I am certainly not one of those women. There are a whole lot more women like me than there are amazon women from the avocado jungle of death.

 

[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.

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.

So far we have one report (and not done by a scientist) supposedly "showing" a problem--but they lumped in voyeurism, something which in the context is effectively impossible to prove. I keep seeing bogus claims--counting crimes committed by trans individuals regardless of location.

If there's a problem why can't a large organization find any decent examples of it? That says to me there are none. This feels about like the evidence for creationism.

 

[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.

So far we have one report (and not done by a scientist) supposedly "showing" a problem--but they lumped in voyeurism, something which in the context is effectively impossible to prove. I keep seeing bogus claims--counting crimes committed by trans individuals regardless of location.

If there's a problem why can't a large organization find any decent examples of it? That says to me there are none. This feels about like the evidence for creationism.

What do you consider a problem? For whom?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There's also a matter of context and culture involved. Yes, a lot of places in europe have coed nude saunas, and coed nude beaches, and it's true that there's not an explosion of misbehavior.

But those are spaces where mixed sex use is traditional and is expected. It's not like one day Sweden woke up and said "Hey, I know, let's make the saunas unisex!" They already were, and had been for a long time. They're also voluntary, and everyone involved knows well ahead of time that they are unisex. Nobody is going to be caught unaware.

Additionally, those spaces are not unchaperoned. There is staff present in various forms, and an existing level of sentinel effect in place. That's something that would not be the case for all of the currently single-sex facilities in the US.

Furthermore, most of europe still has single sex restrooms and shower rooms available all over the place. The existence of some specific mixed-sex cultural traditions doesn't make the other single-sex provisions disappear.

Realistically, the US has nudist beaches and camps already, which are mixed sex. I suspect we've got some mixed sex saunas as well. But that's not an argument for all facilities being made mixed sex. It's the difference between voluntary and obligatory.

If it's not a problem it's not a problem. And where do you get that the spaces are chaperoned?

And there's still the elephant--plenty of places have had trans bathroom access for years and we don't hear about problems caused by it. Now, we have the noise machine beating the war drums about trans so things which have been working perfectly well get claimed to be problems.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

First - because news reporting that shows the problems with the approach are deemed "transphobic", or as you put it "trans-panic" and are more or less sqaushed

That's what Faux Noise would have you believe. That doesn't make it true.

Second - because even when it IS reported, it gets framed as being "trans panic disinformation" or gets downplayed as exceptions... or as you yourself have implied, something that's unavoidable because there was never anything to protect women anyway

It's getting labeled disinformation because it is. Claims, claims, claims--but nothing verifiable. No proper research. And the claims are sudden, stemming from when the QOP started beating the trans war drums--never mind how long the trans bathroom access has been on the books.

Third - because THESE POLICIES HAVE DECRIMNALIZED VOYEURISM AND EXHIBITIONISM so even though they do happen, they're now legally supported.

What I said was that in a mixed situation it's pretty much impossible to prove voyeurism at a criminal level, not that it was proper.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If there's a problem why can't a large organization find any decent examples of it? That says to me there are none. This feels about like the evidence for creationism.

What do you consider a problem? For whom?

I consider it a problem when people are harmed. This is strangely absent from the trans panic stuff, it's all about fear at seeing a penis.

 

[Emily Lake]

And there's still the elephant--plenty of places have had trans bathroom access for years and we don't hear about problems caused by it. Now, we have the noise machine beating the war drums about trans so things which have been working perfectly well get claimed to be problems.

See now, you're busy talking about the elephant while you ignore the blue whale.

"We've had trans access for years without a problem". Sure. But this was an entirely different kind of trans, not what trans has become recently.

We had no problem when the transwomen were 1) diagnoses and had counseling, including counseling and training on how to fit in with women and not make women uncomfortable and 2) were trying their damndest to not be noticed at all by women and 3) were using those spaces as an exception.

The situation today is different, because trans now means something completely different. Now we have a situation where LITERALLY any male at all can say a magic formula, and regardless of whether they show up with a beard in a lumberjack outfit with their cock hanging out of their fly, they get access to those bathrooms AS A RIGHT and women are not allowed to say boo about it.

They really, really aren't the same situations at all.

 

[Emily Lake]

It's getting labeled disinformation because it is. Claims, claims, claims--but nothing verifiable. No proper research. And the claims are sudden, stemming from when the QOP started beating the trans war drums--never mind how long the trans bathroom access has been on the books.

Just becuase you personally were unaware of it until it was packaged in a partisan friendly, anger inducing soundbite and presented to you as a reason to hate those evil right wingers doesn't mean it's new, or that they're sudden.

Additionally, trans bathroom access has NOT been on the books. It has been an accommodation made by women, out of simple compassion, but we have always previously had the right to tell a man - any man - to leave.

 

[Emily Lake]

I consider it a problem when people are harmed. This is strangely absent from the trans panic stuff, it's all about fear at seeing a penis.

In this thread, Loren advocates for legalizing exhibitionism.

So much for women having consent, I guess.

 

[Toni]

If there's a problem why can't a large organization find any decent examples of it? That says to me there are none. This feels about like the evidence for creationism.

What do you consider a problem? For whom?

I consider it a problem when people are harmed. This is strangely absent from the trans panic stuff, it's all about fear at seeing a penis.

Please Loren. Nobody I know is afraid of a penis. Sorry to disappoint you.

Emily Lake has posted cases of apparent makes declaring themselves female in order to gain better access to their preferred victim: females. I’ve read of girls and women being very startled by a naked apparent male body in the women’s locker room.

I know your personal pov is just get over it. How about cis straight men showing some of that leadership you all feel entitled to and start treating queer people and get this: women and girls with respect instead of being disrespectful, dismissive and rude? How about y’all getting over thinking you can just tell women how it’s. Gonna be and expecting us to smile softly and liking down in awe at your splendor, with a shy but flirtatious glance up ( for those of us who meet your specific physical standards)?

 

[repoman]

What does your wife think about this stuff, Loren?