Split Gendered spaces, split from Drag Shows

[Emily Lake]

1) They're female-presenting. That's enough to cause big problems in some areas.

A huge number of them are not female-presenting in anything more than the very most shallow of ways. And if you think that putting on a dress turns a man into a woman, that's a you problem.

 

[Emily Lake]

I would be fine with requiring therapy and ID indicating they were living as the opposite gender for access to any exposed space, but not for access to spaces where others will not see your equipment. (But note I favor an "any" approach to such spaces which would render it irrelevant.)

I have a few direct questions for you.

1) Do you think that your wife should have the right to a female doctor or nurse for her gynecological exam? Do you think your wife should have the right to a female technician handling her breasts for a mammogram?

2) Do you think that the victim of rape should have the right to a female medical examiner?

What do either of these have to do with the issue? And she's had both male and female gynecologists over the years.

3) Do you think that a female victim of domestic abuse should have access to female-only shelters?

This one poses a thorny issue.

You didn't answer the questions. Any of them. Don't tapdance around, answer the questions.



Do you think your wife should have the RIGHT to a female doctor if she asks for it? Or do you think your wife should be FORCED to accept a male gyno against her wishes?

I didn't ask whether she has had male or female doctors - I've had both. But I've always had the choice. Do you believe your wife should have a choice? Or that the choice be denied her?

 

[Emily Lake]

Yeah, I get it, men don't matter, it's all about what happens to those who are by your definition women. Once again, no different than what we used to see with race issues.

Holy fuck. Men aren't being forced into a situation that increases their risk! Men aren't being forced to relinquish their boundaries!

Where do you get off insisting that women who don't allow males to violate their boundaries are bigots? WTF is wrong with you?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I lived in an all-male dorm for a couple years. It had a reputation of being very testosterone, pranks, sports etc, and was looked down on, but staff told us privately that coed dorms had more problems, like tons of romantic dramas, love triangles, unrequited love, which one could imagine becomes harassment sometimes, even suicide attempts. So, do coed dorms also have a higher incidence of harassment, voyeurism, and rape?

A quick google came across this:

What colleges don't tell you: Most campus sexual assaults happen in dorms; freshmen particularly vulnerable

Andrea Anne Curcio, a Georgia State University College of Law professor, researches sexual violence issues, including campus sexual assaults.

www.ajc.com

 

[Toni]

Oh fucking bullshit Loren. YOU are the only one who thinks this is about being prudish. It's about whether or not women have the right to feel safe in women's locker rooms. I think they do. All of them. Including trans women. Who apparently are not safe in men's locker rooms because (some) men are intolerant violent creeps.

Keyword: "feel". That's where we differ--I'm concerned with actual safety, not perception of safety. And despite that deceptive bit from the Independent (note how they lumped offenses, and note that in such a situation it's going to be effectively impossible to prove/disprove voyeurism) the data says it doesn't matter with actual safety. I'm calling out the "women" sign as security theater.

You are NOT concerned with the safety of women. You are NOT concerned with the safety of trans people.

Your entire schtict is that women just have to live with it because men aren’t worried about seeing women naked. Men certainly seem to get all bent out of shape threatened if some gay man or gender non-confirming individual or trans person air just anyone on the LGBTQIA scale shows up in their locker room. You’re not at all interested in THAT. You simply do not care about women. Maybe you care about your wife. That sounds about where your concern ends. Oh, and to ensure that men don’t have to deal with things that upset them, such as their intolerance for those who are different and their propensity for violence.

 

[Emily Lake]

Interestingly, women are actually much more accepting of trans rights than men, despite the men vs women narrative being pushed in this thread. In both cases, most men and most women oppose the use of bathrooms and locker rooms by trans people, that's not in dispute. Ours is a transphobic country to the core. But women are slightly less likely, not more likely, to hold prejudicial attitudes about trans people in publuc spaces.

Yes, women are on the whole more accepting than men. Women have ALWAYS been more accepting of gender nonconforming people than men have been. Women do not enforce social gender norms nearly as harshly as men do, and this has been true throughout history and across cultures.

But... and this is important... If you ask women whether they are okay with pre/non op transwomen using female-only spaces where women are naked or vulnerable... A large majority of women do NOT support that.

Even if more women than men are okay with it, it is still true that the large majority of women oppose it.

On top of that, there are two obvious confounding factors that aren't reflected in the "more accepting of trans rights" summary. The first is that being okay with boys in the girls' room strongly correlates with progressive ideology, and more women than men are progressives. It could be that support doesn't vary by sex among progressives or among non-progressives, and more women than men would still be okay with it overall. And the second factor is you can get any result from a poll you please by constructing the question to get the answer you want. Letting "transgender students" use the bathroom they identify as isn't the same thing as "trans rights". The conflation sweeps the entire issue of self-id under the rug. I'll bet a lot more women are okay with it if a boy has a doctor's note saying he really is gender dysphoric than if any boy who wants to can get a free pass to the girls' room by saying he is; but I'll bet a heck of a lot of men don't find that distinction nearly as important. If "trans rights" is taken to mean "self-id", which it customarily is in the prevailing political environment, I'd be very surprised if anyone can produce empirical evidence that women are "more accepting of trans rights than men".

There was a british poll that really dug into the wording. At the end of the day, it was still more women than men, but it was OVERWHELMINGLY against once it was specified that those transwomen had NOT had surgery.

 

[Emily Lake]

There is a difference between vanilla MTF and the narcissistic asshole freaks that want to disrobe in female spaces especially with no hormones or surgery. Notice a lot of them on news interviews are middle aged loner dudes in poor physical shape? Completely clueless dickheads.

True... but right now, we're not allowed to acknowledge the difference. And there's no reasonable way to identify one from the other, nor any way to grant entrance to one while prohibiting the other.

 

[Emily Lake]

You're missing the fact that we generally aren't protected from offensive things.

But we DO generally protect more vulnerable people from danger, do we not?

aren't trans people also more vulnerable?

More vulnerable than... who? I mean, sure, somewhat more vulnerable to being beat to death by other males. But a lot less vulnerable than the average female, and a hell of a lot less vulnerable than a toddler.

The point is that the vulnerability of transgender identified males from other males doesn't justify throwing open the doors to female-exclusive spaces. That doesn't reduce the risk to transwomen, it just puts it in a different location while simultaneously increasing the risk to females.

 

[Emily Lake]

I like how the NCAA is handling the issue.

In the decade since the NCAA established its previous policy allowing transgender athletes to compete, the controversy surrounding Thomas is the first of its kind. Those guidelines stated that transgender men should be eligible for men’s college teams immediately. Meanwhile, trans women were required to undergo one year of hormone therapy – generally consisting of taking testosterone blockers and exogenous estrogen – before being eligible for women’s teams. According to these guidelines, any trans athlete not taking hormone treatment was still also eligible to participate in an athletic program in accordance with the sex they were assigned at birth.

Under the NCAA’s new policy, which will begin in the 2022-23 academic year, trans athletes will need “documented [testosterone] levels at the beginning of their season,” a second test six months after the first, and a third test four weeks prior to championship selections. While the previous policy also required documented tests and a review panel, it stopped short of requiring this kind of consistent testing.

In addition, the NCAA has now opened the door for transgender athletes to be subject to excessive testing and stringent testosterone limits from national governing bodies. USA Swimming has already taken this approach by implementing a 36-month period in which trans women’s testosterone must be below 5 nanomoles per liter (nmol/l). That 36-month window is much longer than many existing policies. While the NCAA has stated it will not follow USA Swimming guidelines for the 2022-23 school year, the NCAA does indicate a phased rollout that would adhere to more stringent policies in adherence with the national governing bodies for each sport.

If a transwoman wants to gain access to women's spaces maybe some sort of certification needs to be involved.

Oops, forgot to add the link. https://globalsportmatters.com/scie...policy,weeks prior to championship selections.

I'm glad they're tightening up the rules... but no amount of hormone therapy is going to change a male physique into a female one. And even after years of hormone therapy, transwomen still retain a significant male advantage in athletics.

It's not just hormones that are different. Males and females are built different. And humans are fairly highly dimorphic. Males are bigger, stronger, and faster and that isn't all explainable by testosterone alone.

 

[Toni]

You're missing the fact that we generally aren't protected from offensive things.

But we DO generally protect more vulnerable people from danger, do we not?

aren't trans people also more vulnerable?

They are, and also from males.

My ONLY issue is that it is simply not possible to identify a naked stranger with a penis as trans by sight.

Probably most women would be accepting and welcoming to someone who was trans and who they knew would be of no threat to them. Of course it is possible that the individual is attracted to women and is also interested in forcing the issue. I understand that would not be common.

Women are told from girlhood on to avoid certain situations, certain behabiors, certain clothing, to be careful about letting anyone else touch their drink, to not get into cars with only males. My first week on campus, an upperclassman quietly went around to the rooms of incoming freshmen and flat out told us to stay away from frat parties.

My dorm was coed. That was no big deal. It was something of an issue when someone had her boyfriend in the shower and you wanted to take a shower as well. No one wanted to be on the bathroom when some guy who was not their boyfriend was in there.
It was regarded as inconsiderate, not threatening. But yes, if some guy had walked in while I was showering, of course I would have assumed a threat. So would any other person.

What men in this thread are doing is asking us to ignore all of the safety measures women take as a matter of course and to do it when we are naked. It’s not reasonable—as much as that person is more likely to be no threat. As much as I believe with every fiber of my being that everyone—including trans individuals, gender no -confirming, gay, straight, bi, whatever—deserves to be able to feel and be safe.

The only way I can think of to ensure that in locker rooms is with private stalls. Everywhere.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

As far as I can tell, Emily Lake and Toni have neither suggested that transgenders had no place in a locker-room. Their interest is with pre-surgical transgender men. Your interest is apparently with perverts. You are obsessed with perverts.

"Pre-surgical" implies they will eventually have such surgery. Most trans people never have bottom surgery because the results aren't very good.

True. And yet women are expected to throw open the doors to every john dick and randy that says they're trans, regardless of their presentation or their anatomy... and just shut the fuck up and let males do whatever they want?

Please! Enough of this strawman. No one is saying a male can walk into a locker room and when asked about their presence, say they are "trans" and that is that. No one is saying that. Your posts continue to just ooze hyperbole. There are enough issues of concern so as to eliminate any need for hyperbole to make a coherent argument.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There is a difference between vanilla MTF and the narcissistic asshole freaks that want to disrobe in female spaces especially with no hormones or surgery. Notice a lot of them on news interviews are middle aged loner dudes in poor physical shape? Completely clueless dickheads.

True... but right now, we're not allowed to acknowledge the difference. And there's no reasonable way to identify one from the other, nor any way to grant entrance to one while prohibiting the other.

*Bullshit statement*
True.

Jebus!

 

[Bomb#20]

What men in this thread are doing is asking us to ignore all of the safety measures women take as a matter of course and to do it when we are naked.

#notallmen

If you pay attention to the overall pattern of which men in the thread are asking you to ignore all of the safety measures women take as a matter of course and to do it when you are naked, and which men are not asking you to, you can see the malfunction that causes some men to think this way is not testosterone poisoning, but religious poisoning.

It’s not reasonable

Bingo. They have sacrificed rationality on the altar of ideological purity.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It is disgusting to insist that asserting a woman’s right to privacy is equivalent to Jim Crow.

I cannot get over the number of males in this thread telling females that our boundaries and our insistence upon consent is bigotry against males who want to violate our boundaries and disregard our consent.

And what about all of those telling you you can't exclude black people from white spaces?

 

[Oleg]

It is disgusting to insist that asserting a woman’s right to privacy is equivalent to Jim Crow.

I cannot get over the number of males in this thread telling females that our boundaries and our insistence upon consent is bigotry against males who want to violate our boundaries and disregard our consent.

And what about all of those telling you you can't exclude black people from white spaces?

Are you under the assumption that non-white women want random naked men in the gym shower?

 

[Emily Lake]

homology

And yet the idea of what someone considered similar to some other thing is in fact a conflation with the actual reality of what differentiates things.

The approach people take to taxonomy is just an arbitrary grouping based on what dimensions we arbitrarily decide are similar based on arbitrary measures.

One thing having things in common with another thing is not a guarantee that any other similarities will be observed or demanded within the system, which means that the rules were always made up in the first place, even if the results were apparently repeatable.

There's still no actual reality to these statistical imaginaries. They do not bind us in ways that allow prejudicial thinking to be apt.

You might be able to find that knowing statistical facts about groups let's you gamble, but gambling on people that way has a name, and that name is "prejudice".

You are full to the brim with the heap fallacy. You keep calling these things "imaginary" because they're not absolute bright lines... and then you imply that there's just no way to tell the difference. Please stop. And if you really believe this yourself, I don't know what to tell you, other than you've convinced yourself that something wrong is real.

The difference between a braid of three threads and a piece of cloth is an arbitrary number of threads... and yet there is undeniably a difference, recognized by all of us, between a braid of three threads and a piece of cloth. The difference between a handful of sand and a beach is an arbitrary number of sand grains... and yet there is undeniably a difference, recognized by all of us, between a handful of sand and a beach.

And calling someone prejudiced because they - rightly and appropriately - recognize that a handful of sand is not a beach, and a beach is not a handful of sand... well, that's just silly and insulting.

 

[Emily Lake]

As far as I can tell, Emily Lake and Toni have neither suggested that transgenders had no place in a locker-room. Their interest is with pre-surgical transgender men. Your interest is apparently with perverts. You are obsessed with perverts.

"Pre-surgical" implies they will eventually have such surgery. Most trans people never have bottom surgery because the results aren't very good.

True. And yet women are expected to throw open the doors to every john dick and randy that says they're trans, regardless of their presentation or their anatomy... and just shut the fuck up and let males do whatever they want?

Please! Enough of this strawman. No one is saying a male can walk into a locker room and when asked about their presence, say they are "trans" and that is that. No one is saying that. Your posts continue to just ooze hyperbole. There are enough issues of concern so as to eliminate any need for hyperbole to make a coherent argument.

Nobody is saying that... except for the actual policies in place in CA, Canada, and now Scotland.

What keeps a male out of a locker room? We've already had multiple cases of completely intact males, with dicks-a-waggling, showing up in female locker rooms, making the women and underage girls uncomfortable and intimidated... and the males ending up being grant the RIGHT to be there, and the women and girls told that if they don't like it, oh the fuck well, they can find somewhere else to change.

You say it's "hyperbole"? I say IT'S ALREADY HAPPENING.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yeah, I get it, men don't matter, it's all about what happens to those who are by your definition women. Once again, no different than what we used to see with race issues.

Obviously you do not get it. It’s not convenient for you to admit or address the fact that people with penises are more violent and much, much more likely to assault other people.

Quit mischaracterizing my position! I am not saying this! What I'm saying is that we don't have evidence that supposedly women-only spaces provide actual safety. We have plenty of examples of places that aren't keeping penises out of such spaces--and not seeing harm from this "omission". On the flip side the evidence for harm is low quality or even completely bogus (many of the cases being tossed around did not involve someone with a penis being admitted to a female-only space.) If there is good evidence why isn't it being presented?

Furthermore, the comparison to excluding blacks from white-only spaces has only been ridiculed, not rebutted at all.

Signs telling people that guns are not permitted on the premises do not prevent some determined person from entering the premises with a gun and shooting someone.

Signs that state that guns are prohibited DO provide a good screening tool to let people know that anyone with a gun on the premises has bad intentions and will be removed from the premises. Even if they had no intention of shooting up the place.

Once again, pretty much security theater. Gun-free spaces provide basically no protection. They make people feel good, that's all. Only gun-free spaces backed up by metal detectors are useful.

Signs that indicate a space is for women only do not prevent persons with penises from entering but they do serve as a screening device. Unfortunately an imperfect one because it is impossible to know if the naked person with a penis is a MtF woman who is harmless or if they are someone who is looking for a victim.

Apparently a sign that says Men is an indication that you should expect to be assaulted no matter what your genital configuration. You seem to be perfectly fine with that.

The problem is you are saying it's not proven safe, therefore it must be dangerous. Strangely, no good evidence of said harm exists.

As you and others have mentioned, there is often a need for someone to assist another person with toileting, dressing, showering. The two ( or more) people might not be the same gender/sex. Private dressing and showering stalls would certainly be very useful. I think they should be universal, at least until men get their shit together and stop assaulting other people.

The trans-panic crowd never addresses this case, other than to double down on saying no wrong genitals.

 

[Oleg]

Furthermore, the comparison to excluding blacks from white-only spaces has only been ridiculed, not rebutted at all.

Because it's stupid. This argument is used by trans folk to shame everyone else for excluding them from their dating pool, e.g., to have a "genital preference" is racist. Race and sex are not in the same category. At all.

 

[Emily Lake]

And luckily we've got this thing called the scientific method that allows us to test the hypotheticals and determine baselines required to ensure competitive fairness in sports. Likely the issue will be how early transgendered treatment occurs (assuming we don't get to the mental facilities for them part of the fascist track out nation is in right now).

The type of sport might also make a bigger difference on the baseline as well. Swimming, for instance, has clear physical benefits of body length and shoulder build. Where as other sports might not have such significant off the top advantages.

But what I read in your posts in clear conclusions and obvious fact. Yes, is Usain Bolt were to wear a wig and compete with women... it'd be an unfair advantage. But right now, if an 8 year old boy turn girl goes through treatment, how much of an advantage do they have on the woman's soccer team in college, swim team, fencing, etc...? We don't have the data. We need the data. It is going to be something that needs to be observed and policies updated with the data.

Do you understand that your "solution" is essentially fuck the girls, we need to try it and measure it for a while and see. Then, after the fact, if someone decides that "too much" harm has been done to girls... then maybe we might adjust it a little bit until the amount of harm done to girls is something that is decided is an acceptable amount of harm to push onto the girls.

Your solution very happily and blithely sacrifices girls and women so you can try this experiment.

It's the same approach with prisons. Even though anybody with a functioning brain can rather easily foresee that putting fully functional, gynophilic males into prison cells with females is likely to result in additional harm being done to those females... you're perfectly willing to use the women as sacrificial lambs so you can see if it works out for the males who claim a transgender identity. Sure, sure, some women are going to get raped and hurt, but that's just the cost of the experiment, right? And besides, after some chicks get hurt, you and your boys will decide "how much rape" is too much rape for female prisoners to suffer at the hands of male inmates.