Split Trans Issues, Split from Roe v Wade is on deck

[Emily Lake]

Teaching your children mindless fear doesn't help them.

Holy fuck, I don't even have words for the seeming misogyny in this post.

Female women are 95% of the victims of sexual violence, including rape. Males are 90% of the perpetrators. But apparently teaching girls to be aware of and chary of unknown males in spaces where they'll be naked or vulnerable is "mindless fear".

 

[Emily Lake]

The problem with your post is that you seem to believe that your experiences are universal and that no one else’s feelings or experiences are worthy of consideration. You are the sole arbiter of what is right and proper, in your own mind.

To be fair... a whole lot of men have this view when it comes to the experiences of women. He's hardly alone in this.

 

[Toni]

Teaching your children mindless fear doesn't help them.

Holy fuck, I don't even have words for the seeming misogyny in this post.

Female women are 95% of the victims of sexual violence, including rape. Males are 90% of the perpetrators. But apparently teaching girls to be aware of and chary of unknown males in spaces where they'll be naked or vulnerable is "mindless fear".

‘Seeming’ misogyny?

It seems like misogyny because it IS misogyny.

 

[Toni]

And no guys have been raped?

Either past trauma is a reason and thus all penises (including in men's facilities) must be hidden, or it's not a reason and thus none should be required to be hidden.

The problem here is you are thinking of only of minimizing harm to your ingroup, not minimizing total harm.

Some few males have been raped by other males... therefore female women MUST let in any male women who want to be there! See, males might be at risk from other males, and they need females to use as human shields. We'll just ignore the fact that it literally lets in any male who desires to be there whether they identify as women or not, since all they have to do is say magic words. It doesn't matter if it harms more female women - we have to protect the males at any cost!

It’s more than ‘some few’ males who have been sexually assaulted.

Not as common as for females but also likely vastly underreported just as with femake victims.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's true that I have no idea whatsoever what it would be like to feel "safe" in a locker room, but I do believe, strongly, that hurting other innocent people can never expiate one's own trauma. A politics of stoking fear only creates more fear, it does not make us safer.

I agree on the politics part. It's a manufactured fear.

We harp on nudity being a danger--but reality is that nudity where it's liable to draw legal attention is generally a sign of someone seriously out of their mind. It's the mental state that's the issue, not the nudity. Naked guy walking down the street--I'd be worried even though I'm a guy. Naked guy walking down the trail 5 miles from civilization, so what? Same evaluation I would do of anyone I encountered out there--does the person look like they are in trouble? The only time I've cared about somebody's attire is if I felt they weren't dressed for conditions. (I was surprised about how far those two old dudes had gotten, but you're chilly now, crest that ridgeline and expect 20 mph winds. You NEED to turn around!)

However, I don't see this as hurting to deal with one's own trauma. Rather, it's a matter of avoiding anything that might remind one of the trauma rather than actually working on the PTSD.

And I do not accept your argument that this is a question of men versus women, that's absurd. Misognyny drives the entire anti-trans movement, and almost all of its major supporters are male politicians, not female ones. Opposing Donald Trump and his Christian nationalist allies is not misogyny, that doesn't even make sense. They would happily see you all in chains. Do you have any idea how cis men talk about you in their locker rooms? It's not good. It's not safe. You should not trust them at all.

Yeah, the drivers are all doing the conservative party line.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I hated high School locksr rooms. There was no way I was going to shower in a common shower with a dozen other guys. No way.

I have no idea why the authorities at the time thought that was just fine. Fuck them all.

Because when they were built that was the norm.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I am not, and have never been, opposed to abortion being legal.

I know that Emily. You’re not opposed to abortion being legal as long as it is subjected to a second opinion. In advance. That is neither bodily autonomy nor personal freedom IMHO.

Again with your selective and intentionally misleading framing. Be more honest.

I will reiterate once more: Completely accessible abortion with absolutely no strings whatsoever within the first 2 trimesters. I only landed at 2nd opinion in the 3rd trimester because YOU objected to my initial expectation that the doctor needs to provide a medical need on the fucking record. That's where I started, and YOU decided that wasn't sufficient and kept trying to foist judges into the mix. I didn't do that - YOU did that idiotic cartwheel of non-logic.

I was perfectly happy with the doctor just fucking documenting what the diagnosis justifying the medical need was.

Which is going to happen anyway. You are demanding what would happen as a matter of course. That leaves two possibilities:

1) You do not realize the actual situation and are not qualified to have an opinion on it.

2) You understand the actual situation and you are attempting to throw up roadblocks.

What would you think of (US) a politician determined to pass a bill requiring drivers to drive on the right side of the road? Would you think that's really all that's in the bill??

 

[Emily Lake]

Teaching your children mindless fear doesn't help them.

Holy fuck, I don't even have words for the seeming misogyny in this post.

Female women are 95% of the victims of sexual violence, including rape. Males are 90% of the perpetrators. But apparently teaching girls to be aware of and chary of unknown males in spaces where they'll be naked or vulnerable is "mindless fear".

‘Seeming’ misogyny?

It seems like misogyny because it IS misogyny.

I don't disagree with you. I'm just trying to make the concession that it's "apparent" rather than intentional.

Just because I infer misogyny from someone's post doesn't mean that they actually have any hatred or disregard for women. I think it's reckless endangerment and a complete lack of care for women... but they may see it a different way. I'm not a mind reader.

 

[Emily Lake]

And no guys have been raped?

Either past trauma is a reason and thus all penises (including in men's facilities) must be hidden, or it's not a reason and thus none should be required to be hidden.

The problem here is you are thinking of only of minimizing harm to your ingroup, not minimizing total harm.

Some few males have been raped by other males... therefore female women MUST let in any male women who want to be there! See, males might be at risk from other males, and they need females to use as human shields. We'll just ignore the fact that it literally lets in any male who desires to be there whether they identify as women or not, since all they have to do is say magic words. It doesn't matter if it harms more female women - we have to protect the males at any cost!

It’s more than ‘some few’ males who have been sexually assaulted.

Not as common as for females but also likely vastly underreported just as with femake victims.

Relatively speaking, I would still say few. 25% of women have been the victims of attempted or completed rape; 80% of women have been the victims of sexual assault, flashing, or peeping. For men, the rates are much lower. I certainly don't excuse them or disregard them... but the fact remains that male-on-male violence isn't a problem that women should be expected to solve, and we definitely shouldn't be expected to face even higher victimization rates in order to be used as human shields for males.

 

[Playball40]

I'm the monster. I'm the bigot.

No more of this bullshit.

Welcome to the shitshow.

In my experience, calls for reasonable solutions that allow actual women the privacy and safety we desire while ALSO making accommodations for transwomen will be rejected in their entirety, and you'll be called names for it. The only acceptable solution is the complete capitulation of female women to the wants and desires of males, even if doing so introduces risks we already face at significantly disproportionate rates.

I started out simply wanting the right to evict pre-op males who identify as trans from showers and changing rooms. After years of this discussion, I've come to realize that there is no possible solution that will be accepted by transwomen other than real women completely surrendering everything - including our language - to them.

It's the most blatant act of appropriation and colonization I've ever run across.

Nonsense. What trans people want is to stop being TARGETED and painted as perverts. The LAWS should be to make all businesses that provide "showering/changing" facilities, provide PRIVACY for those that prefer it. If ADA laws can be put into place, then so can privacy laws.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But you do agree that personhood is actually a thing, right? You do recognize that some entities are persons? I mean, I assume you would agree that @bilby is a person, and @Toni is a person, even if you don't agree that I'm one?

And I'm betting you agree that non-personhood is a real thing too, right? Like, the keyboard I'm typing on isn't a person, wouldn't you agree?

If those two things are true, then there must exist an inflection point between them, some stage of transition from non-person to person - even if nobody can perfectly agree on where that curve is perfectly horizontal.

I bet if you put your mind to it, you could make a reasonable and logic estimate of the range within which the vast majority of other people looking at the same curve would agree that the it's more or less horizontal. And I bet that such a range is not at the very extreme end of the curve.

We have no ability to clearly draw the line.

You don't have the ability to clearly draw the line between red and purple or purple and blue either - but I'm betting you can tell the difference between red and blue.

You're engaging in the heap fallacy.

No, I'm pointing out that you are engaging in it.

We have some who are unquestionably red. We have some who are unquestionably blue. And we have some that you want legally forced to red or blue.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It is interesting to me that men here are much more willing to insist that we must accommodate a person with a penis than they are willing to acknowledge that some people have very good reasons to not wish to have to deal with an unexpected penis in the shower--for instance, someone who has been raped.

And no guys have been raped?

Either past trauma is a reason and thus all penises (including in men's facilities) must be hidden, or it's not a reason and thus none should be required to be hidden.

The problem here is you are thinking of only of minimizing harm to your ingroup, not minimizing total harm.

No one suggested that male persons have not experienced rape or other sexual assault.

I have offered an option that would benefit anyone whose modest, past trauma or other reason for preferring privacy as a universal standard. Repeatedly.

The problem with your POV is twofold:

1. There are many more females who have experienced sexual assault than exist transsexual men or women. One in three women will experience sexual assault in their lifetime. Your hand waving at a potential goal issue that does not actually affect you is that you prefer to consider the potential trauma to transsexuals ( although I dont get that: I’ve repeatedly advocated for a UNIVERSAL solution) who are much less common than women and girls who have experienced sexual assault. BTW: this would protect trans women from trauma as well.

2. You do not see a problem that does not bother you personally as being worth any expense or trouble. This is a moral failing in your part.

Your complete lack of empathy is a serious character flaw.

1) I have no problem with a facility offering private stalls. They can even put it on promotional materials. That doesn't mean every existing facility magically gets retrofit--especially as your solution takes up a lot more space and thus often will prove very impractical for retrofit.

2) You're missing the sampling problem. Yes, there are more women that have experienced sexual assault than there are transgendered--but that's not the relevant comparison. The question is whether the penis they just saw belongs to a rapist or a transgendered person--and the odds are extremely high that it's a transgendered person. And if it's a rapist the place is so empty the "women" sign provided no protection anyway. You are gaining an illusion of safety.

The reality is humans are extremely poor at statistical reasoning. Especially in a case like this where there's a huge sampling bias. You are looking at the odds for a person walking down the street, not for a person who just walked into "women's". And you're making the mistake of assuming that the rape rate is an indication of what percent of the male population would commit rape.

 

[Toni]

It is interesting to me that men here are much more willing to insist that we must accommodate a person with a penis than they are willing to acknowledge that some people have very good reasons to not wish to have to deal with an unexpected penis in the shower--for instance, someone who has been raped.

And no guys have been raped?

Either past trauma is a reason and thus all penises (including in men's facilities) must be hidden, or it's not a reason and thus none should be required to be hidden.

The problem here is you are thinking of only of minimizing harm to your ingroup, not minimizing total harm.

No one suggested that male persons have not experienced rape or other sexual assault.

I have offered an option that would benefit anyone whose modest, past trauma or other reason for preferring privacy as a universal standard. Repeatedly.

The problem with your POV is twofold:

1. There are many more females who have experienced sexual assault than exist transsexual men or women. One in three women will experience sexual assault in their lifetime. Your hand waving at a potential goal issue that does not actually affect you is that you prefer to consider the potential trauma to transsexuals ( although I dont get that: I’ve repeatedly advocated for a UNIVERSAL solution) who are much less common than women and girls who have experienced sexual assault. BTW: this would protect trans women from trauma as well.

2. You do not see a problem that does not bother you personally as being worth any expense or trouble. This is a moral failing in your part.

Your complete lack of empathy is a serious character flaw.

1) I have no problem with a facility offering private stalls. They can even put it on promotional materials. That doesn't mean every existing facility magically gets retrofit--especially as your solution takes up a lot more space and thus often will prove very impractical for retrofit.

2) You're missing the sampling problem. Yes, there are more women that have experienced sexual assault than there are transgendered--but that's not the relevant comparison. The question is whether the penis they just saw belongs to a rapist or a transgendered person--and the odds are extremely high that it's a transgendered person. And if it's a rapist the place is so empty the "women" sign provided no protection anyway. You are gaining an illusion of safety.

The reality is humans are extremely poor at statistical reasoning. Especially in a case like this where there's a huge sampling bias. You are looking at the odds for a person walking down the street, not for a person who just walked into "women's". And you're making the mistake of assuming that the rape rate is an indication of what percent of the male population would commit rape.

Just how often do you suppose a rapist ‘looks’ like a rapist? Most often they look like a family member, a neighbor, a teacher, a coach, a member of the clergy.

There is zero way for anyone to evaluate with any degree of safety of that person with a penis is there because she’s a perfectly normal trans woman or if that person is there to perv on or harm girls or women.

You are missing the reality of being female in this world and a considerable amount of reasoning and of course empathy

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The existence of communal facilities is because they are cheaper. Privacy is a luxury that simply didn't exist for the average person in the past. You don't have to go all that far back to find the average child was in the room at the conception of their younger siblings.

In the more immediate past, indoor plumbing was nonexistent. When it became available, it was a luxury

Your point seems to be that the safety and well being of women is not worth funding.

Further, your point seems to be that if it is t a problem for Loren, it isn’t a problem. Such self absorption is unbecoming past age 9.

Misogyny is a deep character flaw. You should try to address it.

You're skipping over the step of showing that it's a safety issue. You're just taking it on faith.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What "conversation" can be had with someone whose only solution to the prevalence of sexual assault is to scapegoat trans women for a crime almost exclusively committed by cis men in reality? There's no compromise being offered, only jail sentences to innocent women. That's not a dialogue, that's just more assault of women under a different guise and rationale, targeted at the minority subset of women with the least ability to defend themselves.

I can't speak for others, but the main thing for me is the violation of privacy. I really don't like being naked in front of strangers of either sex, but it would be 10 times worse to expose myself to a random female than a male. Especially if its someone I see regularly in the gym/locker room. I don't want her judging and gossipping about my junk (not that there's anything wrong with it)! I think women are the same way with regard to sharing naked space with men.

And guys won't gossip??

Hint: reality is that so long as you do not dramatically stand out nobody is going to be looking at the details, any more than they'll be noting other details of your body. Our society has a very fucked-up attitude towards nudity. Guess what? When people end up in a situation where nudity/seeing others nude is essential nothing bad actually happens.

You mean like rape? That involves at least partial nudity and often full nudity.

The problem with your post is that you seem to believe that your experiences are universal and that no one else’s feelings or experiences are worthy of consideration. You are the sole arbiter of what is right and proper, in your own mind.

That seems self absorbed to an extreme rivaling that of Donald J Trump.

And how many times does the rapist walk in naked to a public facility??

You're mixing up nudity being needed for rape with nudity being an indicator of intended rape.

I'm reminded of the dog that ran into the street and was hit and forever after would not go on that piece of sidewalk that it had been on, but was perfectly willing to run into the street.

 

[Toni]

The existence of communal facilities is because they are cheaper. Privacy is a luxury that simply didn't exist for the average person in the past. You don't have to go all that far back to find the average child was in the room at the conception of their younger siblings.

In the more immediate past, indoor plumbing was nonexistent. When it became available, it was a luxury

Your point seems to be that the safety and well being of women is not worth funding.

Further, your point seems to be that if it is t a problem for Loren, it isn’t a problem. Such self absorption is unbecoming past age 9.

Misogyny is a deep character flaw. You should try to address it.

You're skipping over the step of showing that it's a safety issue. You're just taking it on faith.

No I’m not. That’s just a cheap shot you take when you cannot refute what the I wrote with anything like reasoning.

I am absolutely considering the perceptions and feelings and experiences of all girls and women, trans or not.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Our local YMCA while having a communal shower room also has individual shower stalls with a small changing area.

Yes, I know that many facilities offer private showers and changing areas and have done for many years. People have many reasons for preferring privacy.

I was not being original any of the times I suggested this. And I knew it.

Yeah, I think one of the first contributions I made to threads like this almost a decade ago was saying something similar, and I know I wasn't the first to suggest it either.

This guidance is so old we might as well call it "conservative" at this point, and yet it still has never been seriously pushed because we ALL know that those inconvenienced by pennies on the profit dollar will scream bloody murder over it.

Let's also not gloss over the fact that even when separate unisex facilities are available... transwomen refuse to use them, and insist that the only acceptable solution is for them to have complete and unfettered access to female single-sex facilities.

As has been pointed out the use of such facilities might out them. And in some situations that might get them killed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Teaching your children mindless fear doesn't help them.

Holy fuck, I don't even have words for the seeming misogyny in this post.

Female women are 95% of the victims of sexual violence, including rape. Males are 90% of the perpetrators. But apparently teaching girls to be aware of and chary of unknown males in spaces where they'll be naked or vulnerable is "mindless fear".

So I should be free to exclude blacks because the violent crime statistics clearly show they are a bigger threat??

As I said, "mindless". You realize most sexual wrongs are not by unknown males? The main risk is letting one's guard down around known males. And the unknown male is generally only a threat in an isolated situation. You should be cautious in an isolated situation.

 

[Toni]

Teaching your children mindless fear doesn't help them.

Holy fuck, I don't even have words for the seeming misogyny in this post.

Female women are 95% of the victims of sexual violence, including rape. Males are 90% of the perpetrators. But apparently teaching girls to be aware of and chary of unknown males in spaces where they'll be naked or vulnerable is "mindless fear".

So I should be free to exclude blacks because the violent crime statistics clearly show they are a bigger threat??

As I said, "mindless". You realize most sexual wrongs are not by unknown males? The main risk is letting one's guard down around known males. And the unknown male is generally only a threat in an isolated situation. You should be cautious in an isolated situation.

I’ve had my breasts and my crotch grabbed in front of others multiple times. Sometimes when there was a small attempt to hide what was going on. Most often not. Being groped ( a form of sexual assault) by strangers or by acquaintances is not uncommon in public transportation, elevators, bars, restaurants, parties or at workplaces. Penetration also can occur and yep, people have been raped in public venues and dressing rooms

It is not rare, Loren. Not at all,

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm the monster. I'm the bigot.

No more of this bullshit.

Welcome to the shitshow.

In my experience, calls for reasonable solutions that allow actual women the privacy and safety we desire while ALSO making accommodations for transwomen will be rejected in their entirety, and you'll be called names for it. The only acceptable solution is the complete capitulation of female women to the wants and desires of males, even if doing so introduces risks we already face at significantly disproportionate rates.

I started out simply wanting the right to evict pre-op males who identify as trans from showers and changing rooms. After years of this discussion, I've come to realize that there is no possible solution that will be accepted by transwomen other than real women completely surrendering everything - including our language - to them.

It's the most blatant act of appropriation and colonization I've ever run across.

Nonsense. What trans people want is to stop being TARGETED and painted as perverts. The LAWS should be to make all businesses that provide "showering/changing" facilities, provide PRIVACY for those that prefer it. If ADA laws can be put into place, then so can privacy laws.

Note that ADA only applies to new construction or major renovation. And even then things get problematic--look at the practice of not surfacing the whole street so as to avoid having to make the curb cuts for wheelchairs. All too often compliance is too expensive and it ends up being nobody gets it.

The ADA was a good idea with a critical if-by-whiskey flaw in it: "reasonable". The politicians left it to be eternally fought in the courts.

The reality is the privacy you desire is expensive, why should everybody be mandated to provide it?