• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trans Women are not Women

Status
Not open for further replies.
DragonLady said:
No; it IS correct, and it's part of the whole reason many of us are upset.
Click to expand...

What is your experience/qualification in mental health/transgenderism to make this assertion?

There's no gate to transgenderism other than self-declaration, and no way for anyone else to know who is -or is not- part of the club.
Click to expand...

Bollocks.

https://www.gov.uk/apply-gender-recognition-certificate

That's why I'm opposed to the whole idea of desegregating bathrooms. As Rolfe said upstream, there's long been a silent agreement to make room, because we believed any male in the washroom was either experiencing an emergency or was post-op.
Click to expand...

If that's why then you should re-evaluate because it's not true. But you won't.

Now, we realize ANY man can walk in at ANY time, and no one will look twice. So, in addition to all the awkward stuff, we also have the additional fear factor -being in a room with a person who can enter in full view of a crowd outside, rape us, drown us in the toilet, and walk out again in full view.... No one is even allowed to ask questions, and we are shouted down as "bigots" and "transphobes" and even "racists" if we try to point out that this really isn't a good idea.
Click to expand...

Yes indeed. Any man is now free to rape you and then kill you because transpeople have access to bathrooms. Are you a Poe?

While the risks would probably remain pretty low in busy, urban spaces -those most affected by these kinds of social changes early on- I think they would become a serious problem in rural places like highway rest areas. We women already have to be "on alert" in areas like that, but it gets even more difficult if we're expected to line up with a row of intact men in a windowless concrete room to wait for a toilet stall. Hell, even the thought of a bunch of men listening to me in that situation creeps me out.
Click to expand...

Things that never happen #36536
 
Crawtator said:
I'm having a hard time making sense of both of these posts. Is it a right for ANYONE to be able to go into a bathroom of their choice?
Click to expand...

Not sure what is causing you an issue.

There is no general requirement or right to have access to sex segregated toilets. Where they exist, trans people (and cis people) have a right to access the facility appropriate to their gender.*

*In the UK, the law limits this right to an extent by stipulating that where it is necessary trans people may be excluded. But this is not a general right to deny trans people access without good reason

Or in other words, places may have no toilets, private toilet cubicles, non-segregated toilets, gender-segregated toilets or sex-segregated toilets depending on their specific circumstances.

By analogy, there is no right to have a baker make you a wedding cake. But where they offer wedding cakes they shouldn't be denying this service to gay people.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Private enough to allow people who choose to do so to do whatever they want discreetly away from the eyes or presence of other people. Especially if that thing is something they would otherwise be comfortable doing in front of other women.



If the argument is that there are things a woman would be comfortable doing in a communal area in front of other women but would be uncomfortable doing in a cubicle when a transwoman is present in the same bathroom then I am struggling to take that objection seriously.



Indeed not. Are we saying that we need to cater to women who feel uncomfortable washing their hands near a transwoman??? And that's not transphobia?



It's more private than a communal sex-segregated area.
Click to expand...
Don’t be dense.

We are not talking about feeling comfortable doing things in a segregated communal area. We are talking about doing things in a cubicle offering minimal privacy with a communal area outside of it and how the comfort level of the person inside the cubical is affected by the composition of those outside the cubicle.

Look, I’m male. For Us guys, the public restroom is for using the toilet, washing our hands and maybe checking our hair. Not a big deal for us.

I wouldn’t presume to tell women what level of privacy they need for the things they use the restroom for.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Not sure what is causing you an issue.

There is no general requirement or right to have access to sex segregated toilets. Where they exist, trans people (and cis people) have a right to access the facility appropriate to their gender.*

*In the UK, the law limits this right to an extent by stipulating that where it is necessary trans people may be excluded. But this is not a general right to deny trans people access without good reason

Or in other words, places may have no toilets, private toilet cubicles, non-segregated toilets, gender-segregated toilets or sex-segregated toilets depending on their specific circumstances.

By analogy, there is no right to have a baker make you a wedding cake. But where they offer wedding cakes they shouldn't be denying this service to gay people.
Click to expand...

But you asserted that rights were being denied to the trans-group. What right is that? Right to go to be bathroom of your gender? Where do otherkin go?
 
Rolfe said:
First of all, that isn't the single biggest issue.
Click to expand...

Then you go on to quote far smaller issues:

Rolfe said:
...but in terms of impact most people would probably consider that women's sports, or women's prisons, or rape crisis centres, were actually bigger issues in the grand scheme of things.
Click to expand...

That looks suspiciously like selecting very small majorities in the face of something 100% of women use.

Rolfe said:
Then, have you the remotest idea how impractical your proposal is?
Click to expand...

With a degree in International Business and 30 years of running businesses, I don't just have a remote idea, but could easily make a compelling case for it, and again, you're helping me out with nonsensical reasons and total ignorance on how either business or construction work.

Rolfe said:
The cost of such conversion would be astronomical, the disruption would be huge, and it would take years.
Click to expand...

Wrong, wronger & wrongest.

The vast majority of bathrooms would require no more than sign changes. Women's toilets generally have cubicles and men's have urinals. Make them all unisex with a note that one set has urinals, then women can choose if they want to walk past a line of blokes with their willy out or not.

The small amount of construction costs for some businesses wouldn't be worth counting.

"Take years" "Astronomical costs" "Huge disruption"... nice hyperbole, but totally removed from reality.

Rolfe said:
Many small firms could easily go out of business under the burden of that sort of cost.
Click to expand...

Tip: small businesses generally have a single or unisex toilet because they're small businesses.

Rolfe said:
And the women who need to escape from the importunate male would still have nowhere to go...
Click to expand...

Starting to look more like special pleading than a desire to accommodate everyone. Blokes won't care, and if a woman's safe place is a toilet, she's probably got her priorities all wrong. There have been plenty of rapes and attacks in women's only toilets, so the idea that there's an invisible force-field that men can't cross is a bit out of date.
 
It really is funny to me to watch two sides fight so fervently over where the line must be drawn while being equally unresponsive to the simple suggestion that there just shouldn't be a line.

It seems both anti-trans bigots and pro-trans supporters are really, really, really keen on the idea that they just have to have a bathroom where some quantify of "the other" isn't allowed in for vague reasons of privacy, safety or whatever, they are just fighting over where to drawn the line.
 
JoeMorgue said:
It really is funny to me to watch two sides fight so fervently over where the line must be drawn while being equally unresponsive to the simple suggestion that there just shouldn't be a line.
Click to expand...

I've recently dug up some old links on point.

Michael Nugent (argues for integration)

Mary Anne Case (argues for integration)

Ted Trautman (argues for integration)

Sheila Jeffreys (argues for segregation)

There is a relative paucity of high-quality arguments in favor of the usual (segregated) approach, presumably because the status quo requires few defenders. I'd be interested in reading whatever you guys can dig up, however.
 
Belz... said:
Well forgive me if I'm asking you to repeat yourself but what about the sport issue?
Click to expand...

You know what... I don't care honestly.

My best answer is "What ever is sustainable." Sports isn't going to the bathroom, it's.... not exactly voluntary but close. Sports (of the kind we're talking here) only survive if it is entertaining to watch or participate in.

We can kvetch and moan and pontificate and ponderingturtle can scream at pigeons on the sidewalk all day long about what's fair or right but if we modify sports to accommodate transgenders and in doing so we make the sports less fun to watch and/or participate in.... well then we won't have sports at all, transgenders included, and then who exactly won in that scenario?

Sports are an issue because it's all about shattering a fantasy we all sort agree to pretend is true, the idea that biological women can compete with biological men in statistically meaningful numbers once you average the bellcurve out.

We have separate male and female sports because we just sort of all know but... like just don't bring it up that women are less on average less physically capable then men. Tumblr can rant and scream about it all they want but a women's basketball hoop is shorter, women's Olympic swimming pools are smaller, every single record that objectively measures speed over distance, weight lifted, object thrown, etc is held by a man with like a... within the margin of error few exceptions.

So men being competitive against other men and women being competitive against other women was, like weight classes and age classes and stuff like that, something we all just tacitly agreed was necessary.

The transgender movement's core philosophy of "Your gender is not your body" breaks that and we're all trying to find a way to pretend it doesn't and we can't.

That circle will square itself however it wants to because... it's sports. It's not essential. It's not a human right. It's not the tail that should be wagging the dog in this case.

Going to the bathroom and just generally living your life isn't a competitive spectator sports so... difference.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
There is a relative paucity of high-quality arguments in favor of the usual (segregated) approach, presumably because the status quo requires few defenders. I'd be interested in reading whatever you guys can dig up, however.
Click to expand...

Even a casual glance through this thread will reveal the answer. Because for both of the major sides in this discussion is vitally important that there is an "other" who isn't allowed in "their space."

They just disagree on who "the other" is.
 
JoeMorgue said:
We can kvetch and moan and pontificate and ponderingturtle can scream at pigeons on the sidewalk all day long about what's fair or right but if we modify sports to accommodate transgenders and in doing so we make the sports less fun to watch and/or participate in.... well then we won't have sports at all, transgenders included, and then who exactly won in that scenario?
Click to expand...

Oddly enough, the far-left has managed to that to Marvel Comics.
 
Belz... said:
Oddly enough, the far-left has managed to that to Marvel Comics.
Click to expand...

I don't want to broaden this discussion too much and while I've vaguely worked this out in my own head it's not something I've like sat down and put proper pen to paper to articulate yet so disclaimer it is a vague and off the cuff summary of something kind of hard to exactly put into words but...

One of the problems with a lot of very, very good people with very, very good intentions is that they never ask the question "Are there enough people who agree with me to sustain the thing I'm trying to improve?"
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
Oddly enough, the far-left has managed to that to Marvel Comics.
Click to expand...
Iowahawk's "skin suit" metaphor reminds me of that quote about Reavers, in the TV show Firefly:

"If they take the ship, they'll rape us to death, eat our flesh, and sew our skins into their clothing – and if we're very, very lucky, they'll do it in that order."
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Cool.

And? Am I to assume from this that either:

1. Washing your hands
2. Using a bin
3. Taking something from a drawer

is too much for a woman to do in the presence of a transwoman? Because on the face of it that seems utter ridiculous.
Click to expand...

No, read again. What I said and several others have too.

Most of those things - and other options also mentioned - don't exist in a ***** cubicle. Which is where you want women to do their stuff, according to your post to which I was responding:

"because I assumed women would be doing these things in cubicles rather than in communal areas"

You assumed wrongly, and have quintuple-downed since. I lost track, in fact. Dodecadupled-down?
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
It really is funny to me to watch two sides fight so fervently over where the line must be drawn while being equally unresponsive to the simple suggestion that there just shouldn't be a line.

It seems both anti-trans bigots and pro-trans supporters are really, really, really keen on the idea that they just have to have a bathroom where some quantify of "the other" isn't allowed in for vague reasons of privacy, safety or whatever, they are just fighting over where to drawn the line.
Click to expand...

In regards to the bathroom issue, I'm a man, so it doesn't really matter that much to me. But it matters to women. Several posters have expounded on the reason, but I don't really need to parse out why, it suffices to observe that it does.

So here's the nut of the problem as I see it. If women in general want something, they're going to get it. That's the way western society works. Feminists would disagree, but feminists don't seem to understand most women any better than men do, and so confuse their personal desires for the desires of most women (for example, most women don't want to be CEO's). Men are conditioned to cater to women, and so we will mostly go along with what they mostly want.

Which means that sex segregation is here to stay. Men can't get rid of it even if we wanted to, and women want it so they get it. The transgender question throws a wrench in the issue because it's claiming privileges for men which are supposed to be reserved for women. And women may be willing to tolerate that... to a point. But if transgender activists push too hard, they will reach that point. And then they will lose. And when they lose, it won't be because they're wrong, or inconsistent, or any of that other stuff. It will be because women don't like their position. And women always win these culture battles. I don't claim to know exactly at what point that will happen, when women will become fed up with the transgender activists. But that's when their quest will hit a brick wall that they won't be able to bulldoze through.
 
Deleted. Ziggurat can't possibly be serious. My mistake for rising to obvious irony.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
Even a casual glance through this thread will reveal the answer. Because for both of the major sides in this discussion is vitally important that there is an "other" who isn't allowed in "their space."
Click to expand...

An attitude which makes perfect sense to me at times, much less so at other times.

If old school lesbians want to have an all-woman nude beach festival, well, that's none of my business. I'll be off minding my own, thanks.

As to toilets in places of public accommodation, well, that strikes me as a design problem.

Here's one idea:
https://www.tripadvisor.com/Locatio...421387-The_Modern-New_York_City_New_York.html

e5cc2a2deb0fff204e33a7010a92aa08.jpg
 
I used to work in retail building maintenance. I was the idiot with the mop after someone dropped something or left a horrible mess in a bathroom.

A female employee had to verify the ladies room was vacant before I could enter during store hours. I could only enter to clean up a mess or empty trash buckets if need be.

The men's room had to be checked every few hours but rarely needed anything but a paper roll replaced.

After hours both were made right for the next day. I cannot imagine why anyone unless in dire emergency state would want to go in the ladies room after about 5 in the afternoon, even with vent fans running all day.

No need for pseudo peer acceptance or reaffirming a presumed identity was worth that. Squatting out back by the dumpster would have smelled better.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Private enough to allow people who choose to do so to do whatever they want discreetly away from the eyes or presence of other people. Especially if that thing is something they would otherwise be comfortable doing in front of other women.
.
Click to expand...

The problem with your argument is that you could equally apply it to trans women. There are cubicles in men's rooms too. Why can't they use those?

If there's an argument that class A of people cannot share a bathroom with class B because of the embarrassment and discomfort it causes, you can't accept the argument when class A is trans women and dismiss it when class A is biological women.
 
jeremyp said:
The problem with your argument is that you could equally apply it to trans women. There are cubicles in men's rooms too. Why can't they use those?

If there's an argument that class A of people cannot share a bathroom with class B because of the embarrassment and discomfort it causes, you can't accept the argument when class A is trans women and dismiss it when class A is biological women.
Click to expand...

Actually, this is the weird part of the argument for me. Both sides are screaming, "Yes we can dismiss it because..." GET READY FOR IT...

FEELINGZ

And I still haven't gotten an answer on what right is being deprived of the transgroup that isn't being deprived of the otherkins or various other self-identified gender groups. The discussion collapses when the new theories arise that gender is not only non-binary, but infinite in variety. What do we do with this information?

In terms of restrooms, my feeling is that we either agree as a society to make completely isolated bathroom areas for all groups (like the picture of separate doors posted above, as long as they adequately accomodate all parties) or we continue with the status quo and you go in the bathroom of your sex. I don't claim to know if I'm right, but I can recognize the problems that the gentleladies here are espousing.

As far as sports, I think that biological males compete against biological males and biological females compete against biological females. The governing bodies of each sport should be able to make the most intelligent decision in what test is used for its purposes.
 
jeremyp said:
The problem with your argument is that you could equally apply it to trans women. There are cubicles in men's rooms too. Why can't they use those?
Click to expand...

Why indeed? Where is the problem?

jeremyp said:
If there's an argument that class A of people cannot share a bathroom with class B because of the embarrassment and discomfort it causes, you can't accept the argument when class A is trans women and dismiss it when class A is biological women.
Click to expand...

That does not appear to be an argument that Archie Gemmill Goal is making.
 
ETA: Thread moved too fast, added who I was responded to for clarity.

Crawtator said:
Actually, this is the weird part of the argument for me. Both sides are screaming, "Yes we can dismiss it because..." GET READY FOR IT...

FEELINGZ
Click to expand...


Because the second we as a society sort of vaguely agreed to something that sort of looks like "Your feelings don't matter" a lot of people started trying to redefine their feelings as something else.

It's the core of a lot of arguments from a lot of people.
 
Crawtator said:
As far as sports, I think that biological males compete against biological males and biological females compete against biological females. The governing bodies of each sport should be able to make the most intelligent decision in what test is used for its purposes.
Click to expand...

IMO in sports the best should compete against the best regardless of any classification. The classifications come into play for those who cannot compete with the best but wish to compete/test their skills against others of similar ability. These classifications will always have an arbitrary aspect to them and some cases will be borderline. That will never be eliminated.

Categories could include, but are not limited to:

- sex/gender
- weight/size
- age
- physical disability
- mental disability

I agree that the individual governing sports are entitled to make the decision. Organizations that encompass many sports, such as the IOC should not be involved in these decisions - they should accept the decisions of the sport's governing bodies.
 
Steve said:
IMO in sports the best should compete against the best regardless of any classification.
Click to expand...


I think where all of this plays into sports is that sports should encourage, recognize, and inspire great athletic performances. One element of that is that is to provide a role model to kids or others to be active, to try harder. You want to look at the winners of a competition and have people say they want to be like those people.

Women's athletics works for that. The winners are extraordinary athletes. Girls who see them compete can aspire to be like those girls (I'm mixing up high school and adult and whatever). Sure, the winners in the girls competition can't beat the boys, but they are nevertheless impressive athletes, because they had natural ability and they worked and trained and came out on top. They are healthy, fit, probably good looking, and something to aspire to.

Unless there's a transgirl in the race. Terry Miller, the Connecticut track star, competed in the boys' group last winter. He was ok. Nothing great. No medals. Then he announced he was a girl. State champion, record breaker, and "athlete of the year".


I guess.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Not sure what is causing you an issue.

There is no general requirement or right to have access to sex segregated toilets. Where they exist, trans people (and cis people) have a right to access the facility appropriate to their gender.*

*In the UK, the law limits this right to an extent by stipulating that where it is necessary trans people may be excluded. But this is not a general right to deny trans people access without good reason

Or in other words, places may have no toilets, private toilet cubicles, non-segregated toilets, gender-segregated toilets or sex-segregated toilets depending on their specific circumstances.

By analogy, there is no right to have a baker make you a wedding cake. But where they offer wedding cakes they shouldn't be denying this service to gay people.
Click to expand...
Edited by zooterkin: 
<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.
Men don't belong in women's bathrooms and if they go in there will be punitive measures taken against them. It's really that simple.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Crawtator said:
Actually, this is the weird part of the argument for me. Both sides are screaming, "Yes we can dismiss it because..." GET READY FOR IT...

FEELINGZ
Click to expand...


There's nothing wrong with worrying about feelings. "The feelz" or "FEELINGZ" gets kind of a bad rep because sometimes it is used to override reality.



When it comes to who sees you without your clothes on, it really is all, or at least mostly, about feelings. There is a legitimate safety element in some situations, but it's mostly about feelings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom