Split Gendered spaces, split from Drag Shows

[Derec]

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

Just a question. Was this a deliberate reference?


But I hear your point. These days, you can be say biologically male and present as a man but still demand everybody refer to you as "they" or some such. It's all getting to be very silly. Pythonesque, almost.

 

[Oleg]

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.

Women are being forced to participate in a man's self-delusion without any concern for how women feel about it.

 

[Oleg]

But I hear your point. These days, you can be say biologically male and present as a man but still demand everybody refer to you as "they" or some such. It's all getting to be very silly. Pythonesque, almost.

 

[Derec]

Woman charged after allegedly sexually assaulting 6-year-old boy in Toronto park

The woman:

 

[Jarhyn]

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)?

The only outcome Emily's evidence actually supports is that we need to have a different mechanism, if any, than "apparent birth with or possession of a  penis" to separate the spaces, if the spaces are necessary to separate at all.

It is clearly penis panic, nothing else, seeing as that I have been in this thread for weeks trying to offer her something, anything that is not penis panic and she rejects it vociferously.

She is fixated on the penis, and fear of those who have them, else she would be able to say "oh, sorry, not the penis, I meant balls" and adjust her position.

The problem is that this means people can decide they can "gain access to victims" by... *Checks notes* oh yeah... cutting their balls off or chemically castrating themselves and getting vasectomized.

She makes no argument for that, no cutout.

She wants an enemy, nothing more, and the people who look a bit like the one that hurt her serve her and any evil person just as well. It's not about justice after all for twisted people, it's about making themselves feel better and having a good story to put spin on to get that Public Enemy declared.

We can easily see the environment is reaching fever pitch, and the GOP is reaching for the next group that hasn't secured legal protection for their atypicality.

And still, she paints this as if trans rights supporters here and at large wish there to be no requirement for claiming access to the space. The top of the comment page is her quoted saying that yet again.

 

[thebeave]

Woman charged after allegedly sexually assaulting 6-year-old boy in Toronto park

The woman:

This reminds of the old adage, "Somebody stop the planet. I want to get off."

He probably thinks he'll get a lighter sentence if he identifies as a woman.

 

[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)?

The only outcome Emily's evidence actually supports is that we need to have a different mechanism, if any, than "apparent birth with or possession of a  penis" to separate the spaces, if the spaces are necessary to separate at all.

It is clearly penis panic, nothing else, seeing as that I have been in this thread for weeks trying to offer her something, anything that is not penis panic and she rejects it vociferously.

She is fixated on the penis, and fear of those who have them, else she would be able to say "oh, sorry, not the penis, I meant balls" and adjust her position.

The problem is that this means people can decide they can "gain access to victims" by... *Checks notes* oh yeah... cutting their balls off or chemically castrating themselves and getting vasectomized.

She makes no argument for that, no cutout.

She wants an enemy, nothing more, and the people who look a bit like the one that hurt her serve her and any evil person just as well. It's not about justice after all for twisted people, it's about making themselves feel better and having a good story to put spin on to get that Public Enemy declared.

We can easily see the environment is reaching fever pitch, and the GOP is reaching for the next group that hasn't secured legal protection for their atypicality.

And still, she paints this as if trans rights supporters here and at large wish there to be no requirement for claiming access to the space. The top of the comment page is her quoted saying that yet again.

I don't see Emily as fixated on anything. A penis is the most prominent distinguishing feature of a male that is easily identified when the male is nude. A penis is generally much more quickly identifiable than testicles, in my experience.

As much as I hate to try to speak for other posters --and I hope that @Emily Lake will accept my apologies if I am wrong and make whatever corrections she needs to make: Emily has repeatedly stated that for trans individuals who have had surgery to make them more gender conforming it would be different. If I understand her correctly, she is not concerned about actual trans women being in women only spaces. She is concerned about individuals claiming to be trans in order to have better access to their victims, whether it be confined to merely voyeurism or to include various kinds of physical and/or sexual assault.

I'm less concerned about that happening, although it seems that it is more common than I had believed than I am about women and girls being frightened or even traumatized by unexpectedly seeing an apparent male showering in a women's only space. I am loathe to link the following article because the NYPost is rather notoriously biased but other sources are worse. And some sites pillory the girl for being frightened or upset--which I certainly would have been when I was 17:

17-year-old scolded for crying over transgender woman’s penis at YMCA

A California teen cried as she recalled seeing “a naked man” in her local YMCA, telling the city council in her San Diego suburb she’d been traumatized by the experience with the …

nypost.com

To me, the danger is not just being frightened by seeing an apparent naked man in a women's only space but that it could be traumatic for victims of sexual assault who would lose their feelings of safety and security. I would imagine that it would also be traumatic for the transwoman. And I also worry that girls and women would no longer be able to discern between someone who is there for malevolent reasons and someone who is there because she belongs.

I am NOT interested in making anyone feel frightened or traumatized or excluded from spaces they belong.

 

[TomC]

I don't see Emily as fixated on anything. A penis is the most prominent distinguishing feature of a male that is easily identified when the male is nude. A penis is generally much more quickly identifiable than testicles, in my experience.

I don't see Emily fixated on anything but the feelings and concerns of women. The huge, hypocritical, elephant in this room is the casual dismissal of the feelings and concerns of female women. Those are trumped by feelings and concerns of male women*, despite the vastly larger number of female women.

I'd bet a lot of money that there are 5x more female women who have been victims of serious sexual misconduct by males than the total number of male women. I am sure I'm being conservative in that estimate.
Similarly, the vast majority of males are no threat to anyone, much less women. But the vast majority of sexually dangerous people are male.
I don't see what's difficult to understand about this.
Tom

* by male trans purists, I note.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Women are being forced to participate in a man's self-delusion without any concern for how women feel about it.

Oh, I know. Nothing like having public policy declare that women are just props for men's fantasies.

I don't have the link anymore, but a few years back there was a case where girls at a school in (? Iowa? I don't recall) had filed suit against the school for allowing a male-bodied classmate to use the girl's showers. The girls didn't approve, and when they took it to the school board, the board said "Oh, don't worry, the transgender classmate will keep a towel over their bits". The girl's response was "Can he put a towle over his eyes?" When it got to court... the judge ruled that "girls don't have a right to expect visual privacy".

The judge effectively ruled that girls don't have the right to deny consent to males who want to look at them while they're naked. The judge legalized voyeurism against teenage girls.

 

[Emily Lake]

Emily has repeatedly stated that for trans individuals who have had surgery to make them more gender conforming it would be different. If I understand her correctly, she is not concerned about actual trans women being in women only spaces. She is concerned about individuals claiming to be trans in order to have better access to their victims, whether it be confined to merely voyeurism or to include various kinds of physical and/or sexual assault.

Close enough. If a person is old-school transsexual, having had complete surgery, and a clinical diagnosis, and is in continued treatment, and is obviously doing everything they can to pass and to not make people uncomfortable, then I am a lot more accommodating for restrooms, changing rooms, and showers. I'm even somewhat accommodating for prisons.

The absolute biggest element of this is that it be treated as case-by-case exceptions, where women remales still retain the primary right to those spaces. I am 100% categorically opposed to granting males RIGHT to female-only spaces, especially if it's based on self-id.

There's a massive difference between accommodating exceptions and giving men as a whole the RIGHT to override women's boundaries and consent.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

[Citation needed]

You are claiming a change, you aren't showing that there actually has been a change.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Emily has repeatedly stated that for trans individuals who have had surgery to make them more gender conforming it would be different. If I understand her correctly, she is not concerned about actual trans women being in women only spaces. She is concerned about individuals claiming to be trans in order to have better access to their victims, whether it be confined to merely voyeurism or to include various kinds of physical and/or sexual assault.

Close enough. If a person is old-school transsexual, having had complete surgery, and a clinical diagnosis, and is in continued treatment, and is obviously doing everything they can to pass and to not make people uncomfortable, then I am a lot more accommodating for restrooms, changing rooms, and showers. I'm even somewhat accommodating for prisons.

The absolute biggest element of this is that it be treated as case-by-case exceptions, where women remales still retain the primary right to those spaces. I am 100% categorically opposed to granting males RIGHT to female-only spaces, especially if it's based on self-id.

There's a massive difference between accommodating exceptions and giving men as a whole the RIGHT to override women's boundaries and consent.

Hint: Very few have complete surgery because the results of bottom surgery aren't very good.

And you're overlooking the fact that many of us do not support self-ID. My opinion is that you use the space that matches your ID.

 

[TomC]

You are claiming a change, you aren't showing that there actually has been a change.

Where is Emily claiming a change?
Tom

 

[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.

[Citation needed]

You are claiming a change, you aren't showing that there actually has been a change.

What rock are you under?

 

[Toni]

Emily has repeatedly stated that for trans individuals who have had surgery to make them more gender conforming it would be different. If I understand her correctly, she is not concerned about actual trans women being in women only spaces. She is concerned about individuals claiming to be trans in order to have better access to their victims, whether it be confined to merely voyeurism or to include various kinds of physical and/or sexual assault.

Close enough. If a person is old-school transsexual, having had complete surgery, and a clinical diagnosis, and is in continued treatment, and is obviously doing everything they can to pass and to not make people uncomfortable, then I am a lot more accommodating for restrooms, changing rooms, and showers. I'm even somewhat accommodating for prisons.

The absolute biggest element of this is that it be treated as case-by-case exceptions, where women remales still retain the primary right to those spaces. I am 100% categorically opposed to granting males RIGHT to female-only spaces, especially if it's based on self-id.

There's a massive difference between accommodating exceptions and giving men as a whole the RIGHT to override women's boundaries and consent.

Hint: Very few have complete surgery because the results of bottom surgery aren't very good.

And you're overlooking the fact that many of us do not support self-ID. My opinion is that you use the space that matches your ID.

Could you please clarify?

You wrote: “Many of us do not support self-ID.”

Your next sentence: “My opinion is that you use the space that matches your ID.”

Do YOU support self Id?

What type of ID did you mean in the second sentence you wrote?

How are women to determine whether or not the male appearing body in a women only space is appropriately there?

Are you suggesting that women should just assume that people with a male body are truthful, honest, and mean them no harm? Is it the penis that makes make bodies so honorable? The testicles? The XY chromosomes?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You are claiming a change, you aren't showing that there actually has been a change.

Where is Emily claiming a change?
Tom

Going to self-ID.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Could you please clarify?

You wrote: “Many of us do not support self-ID.”

Your next sentence: “My opinion is that you use the space that matches your ID.”

Do YOU support self Id?

What type of ID did you mean in the second sentence you wrote?

How are women to determine whether or not the male appearing body in a women only space is appropriately there?

Are you suggesting that women should just assume that people with a male body are truthful, honest, and mean them no harm? Is it the penis that makes make bodies so honorable? The testicles? The XY chromosomes?

Self-ID: You simply decide. As opposed to having your official ID issued in your new gender as part of the conversion process.

And if someone's behavior seems off you have the cops look at their ID.

 

[Toni]

Could you please clarify?

You wrote: “Many of us do not support self-ID.”

Your next sentence: “My opinion is that you use the space that matches your ID.”

Do YOU support self Id?

What type of ID did you mean in the second sentence you wrote?

How are women to determine whether or not the male appearing body in a women only space is appropriately there?

Are you suggesting that women should just assume that people with a male body are truthful, honest, and mean them no harm? Is it the penis that makes make bodies so honorable? The testicles? The XY chromosomes?

Self-ID: You simply decide. As opposed to having your official ID issued in your new gender as part of the conversion process.

And if someone's behavior seems off you have the cops look at their ID.

Really. You think that naked women and girls are in a position to call the police?

Did you read the link I posted up thread ( of course not—why do I even ask?) about an 18 year old girl who was frightened to see a naked person with a male body? She of course is pilloried as being anti-trans.

 

[Emily Lake]

Self-ID: You simply decide. As opposed to having your official ID issued in your new gender as part of the conversion process.

And if someone's behavior seems off you have the cops look at their ID.

Actually, that's not really what Self-ID means.

Self-ID means that there are no gatekeepers or barriers to a person obtaining a legal change on their various documents.

In the past, a person had to have a clinical diagnosis of gender dysphoria in order to change their legal sex markers. This also came with requirements for living in their target gender for a period of time (usually two years) before being allowed to change their sex markers, and usually also required that the person had undergone sex reassignment surgery, or was planning to do so. It also generally included a fee in the low hundreds of dollars to change those sex markers.

Self id gets rid of all of those requirements. It pretty much means that a person goes to the courthouse and signs a form, and then their sex markers on legal documents gets changed. There may be a short waiting period - the longest I've seen in places that have adopted self-id has been three months, but there's no requirement to "live as" the target sex, it's just a waiting period. There is no need to have a diagnosis of gender dysphoria - there's no need to have gender dysphoria at all.

That's the technical reality of self-id. The social reality is different. Even under the old model, which had gatekeepers in place, people almost never asked for any form of ID. There was a level of trust that if a person presented as the opposite sex and used opposite sex spaces, then they must have changed their legal sex, and they must have had treatment and a diagnosis and surgery. This wasn't always true, of course, but it was true most of the time. It provided confidence that the male-looking person in the women's shower was probably "genuinely" trans, and was probably okay to be there.

The social reality of self id is that it's considered incredibly rude and bigoted to ask someone for id to demonstrate their sex, so we are told that we must always trust that all people are always honest. And in some cases (California for example), there is no requirement that a person even go through the legal steps of changing their sex markers - they are granted the right to use female-only spaces solely on the basis of their claimed identity, and there is no possible way at all to prove someone's claimed identity. This created a situation where the effect of these policies is that literally any man who feels like it now has the RIGHT to invade female intimate spaces, and the women have no way at all to prevent it. Men have gained the RIGHT to engage in voyeurism and exhibitionism legally, and women have lost the right to any protection against it.

The reality of self-id is that there is no way at all to determine who is actually genuinely trans, and who is a predator with bad intentions. It's a sexual predator's daydream.

 

[Oleg]

Self-ID means that there are no gatekeepers or barriers to a person obtaining a legal change on their various documents.

I think you have to click your slipper heels three times saying “I wish I was a girl.” Then *poof* you’re a girl. The magic of self-ID.