Mississippi Passes "More Dead Kids Please" bill. Texas responds w/ "hold my beer"

[Jarhyn]

If Emily wants to claim trans women don't belong, she has to find a reason to actual exclude them.

Because they are MALE. They are NOT female. These spaces are separated on the basis of SEX, not the basis of BELIEF.

I disagree with you on this part, Emily. For me it’s because they have not completed a transition and therefore represent the people women are trained all their lives that we have to avoid or be at fault for our own assault.

Once a trans woman has fully transitioned, it is not my belief that they represent this threat any more.

I am fully in support of trans women who have fully transitioned being completely free to use women’s spaces for all the same reasons that other women use them. And I am fully in support of trans women who have not transitioned being provided with a space safe from men, where they can, if they wish, use an ID card system or a testicle inspection to tell the difference.

I am not in support of women in shelters who have been traumatized by penises being forced to cohabit with penises before they can heal from their trauma.

Jarhyn does not appear to have any understanding of what life is like for women. And I find insulting his arrogant claim that women should just cast aside a lifetime of danger management in favor of asking if a penis is accompanied by a scrotum. Of insisting that women let the danger get very very close when they are most vulnerable before making a judgment about protecting themselves.

Emily does not appear to have any understanding of how gender identity is developed independently of genitals. And it is insulting that she claims gender must be some born-in attribute that is never disphoric or ambiguous just because she doesn’t understand it. Or that trtans people do not face extreme danger themselves.

The fact that the bouncers at the shelter let someone in past the gate because they have verified their status of not having testicles and potentially passing a blood or urine test for steroids ought be a socially acceptable and sufficient heuristic.

 

[Toni]

I know that you think that being concerned about naked strangers with penises in a women's only space is the same thing as racism but it isn't.

In this thread, I think it's apparent that Toni is conflating "naked strangers" with "fully clothed strangers", "naked women" with "fully clothed women", and conflating "known trans people with known hormonal status" with "strangers" depending on the context.

Wut?

Exactly what I said.

Actually read the post you responded to, maybe? Wherein I point out that in prisons, sports, and schools, it's not "strangers", and in public restrooms it is not "naked" anyone, and I already carved out places with public shower facilities as deserving a mandate for a third, singleton option.

It’s everybody’s first day in any situation: school, prison, etc. How would you explain to your niece on her first day of basketball practice that she has nothing to fear from the teammate with a penis in the shower room. Or if practice is at the local Y with adults using the space, that naked person with a penis next to her in the shower. Kids are freaked out enough by wrinkled old people. Tell me that you would really advise a 12 year old girl to look for testicles behind the penis and if they aren’t present: no problem! She’s a woman and no threat! You could maybe also explain how she can differentiate between empty scrotum and a male whose testicles retract in a cold shower room.

Women fought long and hard for the right to have access to athletic facilities and to participate in competitive games. We still lack equal access in terms of facilities. Now, we must accommodate athletes who have had every benefit of testosterone up until they went on hormone blockers. We get to hear that finally! The first woman was chosen/ejected/achieved. Whatever honor even though they climbed most of the rings of that ladder, right up to acquiring the supportive wife and children prior to transitioning. And honestly: Kudos to her! I know that her road must have been incredibly difficult, living it as make. But she could abd did and received every advantage afforded those with penises and testicles all through the ranks.

And yes, we must remember to smile and welcome her and not care at all about being pushed aside.

 

[Toni]

If Emily wants to claim trans women don't belong, she has to find a reason to actual exclude them.

Because they are MALE. They are NOT female. These spaces are separated on the basis of SEX, not the basis of BELIEF.

I disagree with you on this part, Emily. For me it’s because they have not completed a transition and therefore represent the people women are trained all their lives that we have to avoid or be at fault for our own assault.

Once a trans woman has fully transitioned, it is not my belief that they represent this threat any more.

I am fully in support of trans women who have fully transitioned being completely free to use women’s spaces for all the same reasons that other women use them. And I am fully in support of trans women who have not transitioned being provided with a space safe from men, where they can, if they wish, use an ID card system or a testicle inspection to tell the difference.

I am not in support of women in shelters who have been traumatized by penises being forced to cohabit with penises before they can heal from their trauma.

Jarhyn does not appear to have any understanding of what life is like for women. And I find insulting his arrogant claim that women should just cast aside a lifetime of danger management in favor of asking if a penis is accompanied by a scrotum. Of insisting that women let the danger get very very close when they are most vulnerable before making a judgment about protecting themselves.

Emily does not appear to have any understanding of how gender identity is developed independently of genitals. And it is insulting that she claims gender must be some born-in attribute that is never disphoric or ambiguous just because she doesn’t understand it. Or that trtans people do not face extreme danger themselves.

The fact that the bouncers at the shelter let someone in past the gate because they have verified their status of not having testicles and potentially passing a blood or urine test for steroids ought be a socially acceptable and sufficient heuristic.

Really? You think there are bouncers checking genitals?

 

[Toni]

I keep wondering what could happen to a trans woman with male parts wearing a dress in a men's room

There is some risk of running into a rabidly zealous religious nutball who beats them up. But so far as I can tell, the overwhelming vast majority of men do not care if a transwoman shows up in the men's room. It's a guy in a dress, nobody actually cares. Other males are relatively low risk to men in terms of physical strength. Even small effeminate males have a physical advantage over the majority of women.

In blue areas it's no problem. In red areas it could prove quite dangerous.

Based on...?

You really have to fucking ask?

And Loren is wrong. It's still an issue in blue areas, too. Less of an issue, but still an issue.

This is an example of you not really understanding what Emily was saying. She was saying exactly what you are saying: It will also be a problem in blue states.

And it's something your side completely ignores. You're effectively saying you can't safely be trans in a red state. Outlaw it by vigilante rather than by law.

No one is supporting vigilantism. We are merely saying that it, and sexual aggression, does exist. That is by no means the same as supporting it. You cannot be safely trans in a red state until red states take strong measures to protect trans people.

It’s also not necessarily safe in blue states, either.

 

[Jarhyn]

It’s everybody’s first day in any situation: school, prison, etc. How would you explain to your niece on her first day of basketball practice that she has nothing to fear from the teammate with a penis in the shower room

Any daughter of mine isn't going to be raised specifically to fear penises because I think that doing so is specifically child abuse, both of my child AND the child who has validated to the school system exactly what they are.

Same for prisons.

Same for sports.

There are barriers to entry in each situation, and we can absolutely make those barriers more difficult to cross than just up and saying "I'm trans".

Or if practice is at the local Y with adults using the space, that naked person with a penis next to her in the shower.

I already carved out places with public shower facilities as deserving a mandate for a third, singleton option.
I already carved out places with public shower facilities as deserving a mandate for a third, singleton option.
I already carved out places with public shower facilities as deserving a mandate for a third, singleton option.

Now, we must accommodate athletes who have had every benefit of testosterone up until they went on hormone blockers

Yes, absolutely, when they went on blockers years prior. Because even "women" who have themselves taken anabolic steroids are allowed to compete... After having had a clean test for steroids for some period of time. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Really? You think there are bouncers checking genitals?

You're the one claiming that they don't allow trans women even if they have had an orchiectomy. Gotta do that somehow...

 

[IIDB Staff]

The derail about Biden or Trump being too old to be elected is split moff and moved to the Presidential elections subforum.

Split - Biden or Trump too old?

:staffwarn: SPLIT from here. https://iidb.org/threads/mississippi-passes-more-dead-kids-please-bill-texas-responds-w-hold-my-beer.27109 You have a burden of proof for establishing any particular claim of fundamental difference. You're insisting that the burden of proof that the...

iidb.org

 

[Toni]

It’s everybody’s first day in any situation: school, prison, etc. How would you explain to your niece on her first day of basketball practice that she has nothing to fear from the teammate with a penis in the shower room

Any daughter of mine isn't going to be raised specifically to fear penises because I think that doing so is specifically child abuse, both of my child AND the child who has validated to the school system exactly what they are.

Same for prisons.

Same for sports.

There are barriers to entry in each situation, and we can absolutely make those barriers more difficult to cross than just up and saying "I'm trans".

Or if practice is at the local Y with adults using the space, that naked person with a penis next to her in the shower.

I already carved out places with public shower facilities as deserving a mandate for a third, singleton option.
I already carved out places with public shower facilities as deserving a mandate for a third, singleton option.
I already carved out places with public shower facilities as deserving a mandate for a third, singleton option.

Now, we must accommodate athletes who have had every benefit of testosterone up until they went on hormone blockers

Yes, absolutely, when they went on blockers years prior. Because even "women" who have themselves taken anabolic steroids are allowed to compete... After having had a clean test for steroids for some period of time. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Really? You think there are bouncers checking genitals?

You're the one claiming that they don't allow trans women even if they have had an orchiectomy. Gotta do that somehow...

You’re the one who said there were bouncers who, presumably would check genitals.

Many, many pages ago I said that there should be universal single stall showers, toilets and dressing rooms in facilities for all genders. Limiting it to women’s facilities makes women’s facilities more expensive and is a traditional reason for not providing women’s facilities.

Steroids are not equivalent to testosterone.

If only the gander had to live by the goose’s restrictions!

 

[Jarhyn]

Steroids are not equivalent to testosterone

Testosterone is not the only steroid, but testosterone is a steroid for which this is true.

Again sauce for the goose...

 

[Jarhyn]

You’re the one who said there were bouncers who, presumably would check genitals

Women's shelters didn't enter into the conversation until someone was speaking how they can and do bar trans women. I'm not sure if it was you or Emily that made that claim, but the fact is, if someone can meet the bar of S-/T-, I say they shouldn't be turned away.

People aren't allowed to remove their testicles to become S- until they have been T- for a year anyway, and vasectomy is only "probably". I would put that down as an S-*.

I proposed an ID card change that would record that, and a penalty of consummation of any faked status through forcible castration. Then, I think that such actions should also yield a marker on an ID of exactly why they got castrated, too: because they are a sex offender, and they committed a fraud pursuant to sexual assault.

I really don't think we should allow anyone to reproduce OR be on steroids of any kind if they go to such lengths to get access to victims, and I think there should be an unavoidable red flag that follows them if they try.

 

[Toni]

I believe that it was Rhea who brought up womens shelters, which exactly are relevant to this conversation. It is one thing for women who belong to country clubs to not want to share showers with people with penises: they probably do have other options. It’s still an issue but not with the sane urgency as a woman’s shelter. But the same principals apply: women need abd deserve to feel safe and to be safe in women’s facilities, be they bathrooms, gym facilities/locker rooms, shelters, dormitories, etc.

Women in shelters definitely do not have good options. Many/most are there specifically because of trauma. This of course includes trans individuals. The issue here, as with all other spaces specifically for women is exactly how to adequately provide for the safety: physical and emotional—of all who seek out shelters. Specifically we are talking about womens shelters with respect to the issue of preventing additional trauma. Of course I am including transwomen in this group. Trans people experience a far greater than average risk of violence, including sexual violence. It is important to provider a safe environment for trans women, regardless of whether or not they are pre surgical or never intend to have surgery. At the same time, other women’s safety, security and right to privacy must be preserved. I’m not certain how to provide facilities that are needed that do not put a tube’s safety at risk and do not stigmatize or traumatize anyone. It needs to be done, though.

I find the idea of forced castration to be horrifying.

 

[Jarhyn]

But the same principals apply: women need abd deserve to feel safe and to be safe in women’s facilities, be they bathrooms, gym facilities/locker rooms, shelters, dormitories, etc.

The thing is, this includes trans women.

In all of the situations you present, except the gym (where the clientele is "general public"), and even in some of THOSE circumstances, validation is easily attainable as to the status of someone as "actually trans", particularly "women's-only" gyms.

I find the idea of people being allowed without consequences to lie about whether they pose a danger to others to be MORE horrifying than forced castration.

I believe that lying about being a trans woman to the extent of knowingly going out, acquiring a fake ID, lying about abuse, and checking oneself in to a shelter for people who have been victimized so as to victimize them AGAIN to be far more horrifying than seeing such people removed from the gene pool and having their steroid factory taken away.

In fact, the idea of seeing such people both removed from the gene pool and losing their free steroid faucet (while being allowed to continue to live at all) gives me a bit of a happy thought.

The premeditation implied by such a heinous act is egregious, the sort of thing that a younger me would call for the death penalty for.

Then, I think the same goes for those who would molest a child.

 

[Toni]

But the same principals apply: women need abd deserve to feel safe and to be safe in women’s facilities, be they bathrooms, gym facilities/locker rooms, shelters, dormitories, etc.

The thing is, this includes trans women.

In all of the situations you present, except the gym (where the clientele is "general public"), and even in some of THOSE circumstances, validation is easily attainable as to the status of someone as "actually trans", particularly "women's-only" gyms.

I find the idea of people being allowed without consequences to lie about whether they pose a danger to others to be MORE horrifying than forced castration.

I believe that lying about being a trans woman to the extent of knowingly going out, acquiring a fake ID, lying about abuse, and checking oneself in to a shelter for people who have been victimized so as to victimize them AGAIN to be far more horrifying than seeing such people removed from the gene pool and having their steroid factory taken away.

In fact, the idea of seeing such people both removed from the gene pool and losing their free steroid faucet (while being allowed to continue to live at all) gives me a bit of a happy thought.

The premeditation implied by such a heinous act is egregious, the sort of thing that a younger me would call for the death penalty for.

Then, I think the same goes for those who would molest a child.

What I don’t think you understand is that when I express concerns about women feeling and being safe in wimen’s only spaces, I mean cis and trans women. Both. All.

But there are some conflicts inherent in the situation. Lots of women have extremely valid reasons to feel traumatized or fearful or grossed out by unexpectedly encountering a naked person with a penis standing next to her in the shower. At the same time, trans women do not need to be confronted by screams of horror or accusations or demands to know their personal medical history.

 

[Bomb#20]

The issue here is that this isn't a discussion ABOUT "men, on average."

This is a discussion specifically about trans women, and the rights of trans women, and discussing what "men" are capable of physically is not a discussion about

Of course you see this as a discussion about trans women and the rights of trans women. Why would anyone think cis women and the rights of cis women are worth discussing? [/sarcasm]

 

[Bomb#20]

The fact, complete and utter fact that MTF represent an order of magnitude fewer convictions than their population representation trumpan order of magnitude fewer convictions than their population representations all the rest.

There is no such fact. You just repeat it over and over, as though when you say it enough times my already having pointed out what was wrong with your data will magically go away. Your inference that they have an order of magnitude fewer convictions than their population representation depends on the ridiculous premise that all the imprisoned transwomen are known to be transwomen by the prison authorities.

 

[Bomb#20]

Emily could just accept "ok, I will absolutely tolerate people in the bathroom so long as they don't have testicles and aren't shooting steroids, or have a valid physical security argument such as egg/sperm."

She is hardline against ANYONE born with a penis being included. That's the difference.

I present a compromise. The fact that she utterly rejects it puts the lie to her claims of concern.

That is a strawman. Emily is already on record saying she's okay with MTF's in the women's room if they've had so-called sex-change operations. You're both willing to compromise. The difference is that her compromise is workable and your "compromise" is one that will be acceptable to nobody but you. Putting it on the table at all serves only as a stalking horse for making all bathrooms men's rooms.

 

[Jarhyn]

Of course you see this as a discussion about trans women and the rights of trans women

Yes, this is a discussion about trans women and their rights because this is a thread about trans women and their rights and talking about things here that are not that are either derails or red herrings.

 

[Jarhyn]

There is no such fact.

It's right there in the data she presented. 129/79k is .1%, and there is a strong trend in sex offenders giving lipservice to being "trans" only after they are caught, usually in an attempt to gain access to victims which skews that much higher.

As I've said, orchiectomy is a good dividing line.

Your average rapist isn't going to want to volunteer to be castrated, whereas your average trans woman will usually be thrilled to no longer need two medications at once, especially if it gets them away from men.

It should be fully covered by insurance, for anyone who wants one. Hell, even the Christians should be able to accept that, seeing as they have a literal biblical mandate to do so.

your "compromise" is one that will be acceptable to nobody but you

Hmmm... I wonder if you even understand what my "compromise" is well enough to state it back to me. I don't think you do.

Of course there are a lot of people who would object to it for the same reason republicans in Minnesota objected to the recent MMJ bill: because it takes away their Boogeyman that they can scare hicks with.

Emily has frequently signaled that her offers to compromise are in as good faith as Lucy with a football.

I gave her an example of a trans girl who had NEVER experienced life on testosterone, and she rejected that. That's not a compromise. That's hard-lining.

 

[Bomb#20]

There is no such fact.

It's right there in the data she presented. 129/79k is .1%,

Are you seriously suggesting that Emily relying on the same poor quality data for her conclusion as you for yours means your inference is correct?!? That's not how it works. Her extrapolation to the full population is just as unreliable as yours.

and there is a strong trend in sex offenders giving lipservice to being "trans" only after they are caught, usually in an attempt to gain access to victims which skews that much higher.

And there is a strong trend in non-sex trans offenders giving lipservice to being "cis", before and especially after they are caught, usually in an attempt not to be persecuted by respectively wider society and the other prisoners. To assume only 129 of the 79,000 prisoners are transwomen merely because only 129 of them volunteered that information about themselves is imbecilic.

As I've said, orchiectomy is a good dividing line.

Your average rapist isn't going to want to volunteer to be castrated, whereas your average trans woman will usually be thrilled to no longer need two medications at once, especially if it gets them away from men.

The great majority of transwomen do not choose orchiectomies. You decided they'd be thrilled because you want one. That is not a dependable procedure for getting accurate information about what thrills other people.

Hmmm... I wonder if you even understand what my "compromise" is well enough to state it back to me. I don't think you do.

Of course there are a lot of people who would object to it for the same reason republicans in Minnesota objected to the recent MMJ bill: because it takes away their Boogeyman that they can scare hicks with.

Of course there are a lot of people who would object to it because it relies on diagnoses and ID cards and enforcement with castration threats and thereby takes away the one and only criterion they find acceptable: self-ID.

Emily has frequently signaled that her offers to compromise are in as good faith as Lucy with a football.

I gave her an example of a trans girl who had NEVER experienced life on testosterone, and she rejected that. That's not a compromise. That's hard-lining.

What the heck are you talking about? There is no such thing as a transgirl who never experienced life on testosterone. Male babies have testosterone.

 

[Emily Lake]

I disagree with you on this part, Emily. For me it’s because they have not completed a transition and therefore represent the people women are trained all their lives that we have to avoid or be at fault for our own assault.

Once a trans woman has fully transitioned, it is not my belief that they represent this threat any more.

What do you think constitutes "Fully transitioned"?

If by fully transitioned you mean they have had orchiectomy, penectomy, and vaginoplasty, exogenous estrogen, and have also had a clinical diagnosis of gender dysphoria and a degree of counseling and training for how to conscientiously respect women in women's space, how to not be intimidating, and how to blend in as well as possible...

Then I am personally willing to allow accommodation for that - this is the accommodation that already existed, and has existed for some 50 years or so. I had no problem with it, and I think the activists should have just left it the fuck alone.

I am fully in support of trans women who have fully transitioned being completely free to use women’s spaces for all the same reasons that other women use them.

While you and I and Toni might all agree, based on our personal beliefs... I don't think this is something that any of us has a right to FORCE on other women. Because even a fully transitioned (as described above) transgender identified male very often still clocks as male. Especially when they are in the presence of actual women. Taken in isolation, Laverne Cox looks pretty feminine, she passes quite well (well enough that I unconsciously use female pronouns). But if you see her in the presence of females, the size of her hands and feet, her overall presence - they're unmistakably male.

So while I support access for fully transitioned transsexuals... I still want it to be discretionary, not a right by law.

And I am fully in support of trans women who have not transitioned being provided with a space safe from men, where they can, if they wish, use an ID card system or a testicle inspection to tell the difference.

Sure. Although I'm quite happy to allow transgender people to determine what means of verification they wish to impose upon themselves.

I am not in support of women in shelters who have been traumatized by penises being forced to cohabit with penises before they can heal from their trauma.

Agree.

Jarhyn does not appear to have any understanding of what life is like for women. And I find insulting his arrogant claim that women should just cast aside a lifetime of danger management in favor of asking if a penis is accompanied by a scrotum. Of insisting that women let the danger get very very close when they are most vulnerable before making a judgment about protecting themselves.

Jarhyn seems to have no understanding of women, nor of the female sex, in any way whatsoever.

Emily does not appear to have any understanding of how gender identity is developed independently of genitals. And it is insulting that she claims gender must be some born-in attribute that is never disphoric or ambiguous just because she doesn’t understand it. Or that trtans people do not face extreme danger themselves.

Well ackchoooalleee....

Gender identity is a very specific condition applicable to only a small minority of people. Most people do not develop a gender identity - most of us don't have a strong feeling of affinity for one social role or another.

And I DEFINITELY don't think that gender is an inborn attribute. I think gender is a social construct, largely based on sexist stereotypes, and used to reinforce men as the dominant actor and relegating women to subservient secondary roles.

I think that some people are definitely dysphoric. In fact, I think most people experience some degree of dysphoria during their lives, usually during puberty.

What I do not accept is that any person's dysphoria-induced gender identity in any fashion alters the material reality of sex. Nor do I think that any person's claimed gender identity should allow them to transgress sex-based barriers as a privilege of law.

Some transgender people do face danger. But I also think that the narrative of that danger has been intentionally manipulated. I do not in any way doubt that risks do exist. But the magnitude espoused frequently fails to control for other sources of risk. The rates of suicidality reported for transgender people, for example, follow the same pattern as for other people with depression and anxiety disorders - something that is not controlled for in the statistics. The assumption is made that people are depressed because they are transgender. But the few long term studies performed on mental health after transition show no material improvement in depression or suicidality once past the short term "euphoria" stage. Additionally, mortality rates that exclude suicidality frequently do not control for mortality related to prostitution. The rate of assault and mortality faced by transwomen who are prostitutes are pretty much the same rate as those faced by females who are prostitutes - thus the risk factor is prostitution, not being transgender.

Risks do exist. I don't deny that. But the risks should be addressed directly. Suicidality, depression, anxiety, and prostitution are all things that should be directly addressed - and that is regardless of whether an individual has a gender identity or not, and regardless of their sex.

Male violence should be addressed directly as well.

 

[Emily Lake]

The fact that the bouncers at the shelter let someone in past the gate because they have verified their status of not having testicles and potentially passing a blood or urine test for steroids ought be a socially acceptable and sufficient heuristic.

FFS. Women are not "men without testicles"

Your position is incredibly patriarchal and misogynistic.