• 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.

Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rolfe said:
And don't give me this guff about "fitting in" there. They don't fit in there.
Click to expand...
Seani certainly does not "fit in" the ladies room, and probably realises that. If they were a transman, they would look practically identical and also not fit in. Many transwomen would fit in. I think if we are to have segregated restrooms, people should go to the place where they most fit in. You have repeatedly claimed that you disagree and expect people to segregate themselves based on other criteria.
 
LondonJohn said:
If one accepts that transgender issues are genuine, and that there are people who genuinely feel that they've been born with the wrong gender...
Click to expand...


If? This depends on what you mean by genuine. There are certainly people who insist on invading the spaces and provisions of the opposite sex, claiming that they either want to be (and so should be treated as if they are) or actually are the opposite sex. That is a genuine issue.

However, we can't even define "gender" other than as a set of regressive sexist stereotypes or as an aspect of personality. I don't see how one can be born with the wrong personality. I can see how someone may feel that they aren't attracted to the set of regressive sexist stereotypes they're expected to be attracted to, happens to most of us from time to time, but that doesn't mean we're the opposite sex.

Nobody is born in the wrong body. No matter how genuinely they think they have been. Whose body have they been born in? Where is their own body and who has it? What are you, apart from your body? The more you think about this the madder it is.

Someone may insist they're Napoleon, or Jesus Christ, or a woolly mammoth. Does that mean they actually are Napoleon, or Jesus Christ, or a woolly mammoth? No, it means they're suffering from a delusional condition. Do we treat any of these delusional conditions by re-ordering all social norms to align with the delusion? We do not. Why is this one any different?

Men are so often absolutely willing to give up women's rights vicariously to satisfy the demands of other men. But none of this makes a lick of sense. This is a matter of biological sex, not preferences for clothes or colours or makeup.

Once you let the camel's nose into the tent, as was done a decade or so ago on the assurance that there were very very few transwomen in the country and that this small concession to this tiny number of people was an acceptable infringement of women's rights because it was such a very very small number (it's all there in Hansard, go and look), very soon you find the entire camel in there. The entire camel being Jonathan Yaniv and Alex Drummond and that guy who insisted on using the female changing room in Top Shop because he claimed to be non-binary.

Somehow this tiny number of mainly white heterosexual men has managed to have its wishes prioritised over the entirety of the rights women have struggled for for generations. Repeatedly, in this thread and elsewhere, we see women's concerns being brushed aside at best and vilified at worst, while the desires of a relatively small number of men are treated as sacrosanct because their feelings have priority.

Stop it. Reverse. Men, make space for gender nonconforming men in male spaces, because they are male. Stop insisting that women give up all their rights to accommodate your misfits.
 
Okay, just one more Venn diagram. Hopefully much less confusing that the last one, which received ample justifiable criticism.

Screenshot 2020-09-05 at 17.26.10.jpg

Okay, so the very dark intersection in the middle is going to be the set of traits common to just about all human beings, e.g. lungs, shoulders, knees, toes, linguistic ability, etc. Nothing much to fret over here.

The dark blue-to-purplish bit will be the physical attributes we normally associate with human females, e.g. cervices, ova, uteri, etc.

The green bit is the part that I keep asking about, and the best answer I've seen so far is that both kinds of women have a "gender identity" which makes them feel like they ought to be seen to be female by themselves and others. One major problem with this is that many women (who have no objection to being seen as such) do not necessarily have a strong sense of subjective gender identity, and may indeed see gender as something socially imposed upon them rather than something inherent to their sense of self.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Okay, just one more Venn diagram. Hopefully much less confusing that the last one, which received ample justifiable criticism.

View attachment 43000

Okay, so the very dark intersection in the middle is going to be the set of traits common to just about all human beings, e.g. lungs, shoulders, knees, toes, linguistic ability, etc. Nothing much to fret over here.

The dark blue bit will be the physical attributes we normally associate with human females, e.g. cervices, ova, uteri, etc.

The green bit is the part that I keep asking about, and the best answer I've seen so far is that both kinds of women have a "gender identity" which makes them feel like they ought to be seen to be female by themselves and others. One major problem with this is that many women (who have no objection to being seen as such) do not necessarily have a strong sense of subjective gender identity, and may indeed see gender as something socially imposed upon them rather than something inherent to their sense of self.
Click to expand...
Can't help thinking you are over complicating things
 
I seem to remember a time when a vociferous group made impassioned representations about gay men using male changing rooms: "What if he comes on to us while we're undressed?!" "What if we see that he's become visibly aroused?!".

Oh and that's before we get to the whole saga about gays in the military. "We can't have gay guys serving on the front line alongside hetero guys! All manner of dreadful things might happen!!"

Fortunately, we moved on over these issues. Sounds like there's some further moving on to go wrt other matters, however....
 
cullennz said:
Can't help thinking you are over complicating things
Click to expand...
If you say so. Seems to be that there has to be something fairly essential in the green area if we're going to redefine "women" to be a superset of trans women and cis women in a sensible way.
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
I seem to remember a time when a vociferous group made impassioned representations about gay men using male changing rooms: "What if he comes on to us while we're undressed?!" "What if we see that he's become visibly aroused?!".

Oh and that's before we get to the whole saga about gays in the military. "We can't have gay guys serving on the front line alongside hetero guys! All manner of dreadful things might happen!!"

Fortunately, we moved on over these issues. Sounds like there's some further moving on to go wrt other matters, however....
Click to expand...

Yep, I'm hearing the same arguments that were used against me when I was serving. Just replace gay with trans.
 
d4m10n said:
If you say so. Seems to be that there has to be something fairly essential in the green area if we're going to redefine "women" to be a superset of trans women and cis women in a sensible way.
Click to expand...
We don't have to.

There are women and trans women.

Call both she. Everyone happy.
 
d4m10n said:
Okay, just one more Venn diagram. Hopefully much less confusing that the last one, which received ample justifiable criticism.

View attachment 43000

Okay, so the very dark intersection in the middle is going to be the set of traits common to just about all human beings, e.g. lungs, shoulders, knees, toes, linguistic ability, etc. Nothing much to fret over here.

The dark blue bit will be the physical attributes we normally associate with human females, e.g. cervices, ova, uteri, etc.

The green bit is the part that I keep asking about, and the best answer I've seen so far is that both kinds of women have a "gender identity" which makes them feel like they ought to be seen to be female by themselves and others. One major problem with this is that many women (who have no objection to being seen as such) do not necessarily have a strong sense of subjective gender identity, and may indeed see gender as something socially imposed upon them rather than something inherent to their sense of self.
Click to expand...

I think the problem is that everybody has a gender identity, but if your gender identity doesn't ever conflict with your birth sex, you never think about it.

Gender identity is all about how you see yourself and your gender, it is subjective and not something socially imposed (that would be more like gender roles and presentation).
 
Meadmaker said:
Did you mean dream, or fantasize?

Co-ed showers would work just fine for me, but I'm a guy. Having a co-ed locker room at the gym would have double benefits. Not only would I get to see naked women, but it would give me extra incentive to spend more time working out.

When a majority of women start saying that they would like or at least would not object to mixed sex showers, I would take this suggestion seriously. As it is, I think the suggestion would be much more welcomed by men than women.
Click to expand...
Because we already live in a society where nudity is not considered natural.
Which is in turn caused by us having separate showers and locker rooms. QED.
 
LondonJohn said:
I seem to remember a time when a vociferous group made impassioned representations about gay men using male changing rooms: "What if he comes on to us while we're undressed?!" "What if we see that he's become visibly aroused?!".

Fortunately, we moved on over these issues. Sounds like there's some further moving on to go wrt other matters, however....
Click to expand...
The fact that we freely tolerate gays, lesbians, and bi people using the same gender's locker rooms is another argument not only why trans people in bathrooms should be totally OK, but also why the idea of separate locker rooms for men and women/boys and girls is pretty stupid to begin with.
 
Safe-Keeper said:
The fact that we freely tolerate gays, lesbians, and bi people using the same gender's locker rooms is another argument not only why trans people in bathrooms should be totally OK, but also why the idea of separate locker rooms for men and women/boys and girls is pretty stupid to begin with.
Click to expand...

Well, no. That's a dumb conclusion to reach. And it runs contrary to data linked upthread that shows that women are in fact more at risk of sexual assault in mixed sex bathrooms.
 
Safe-Keeper said:
The fact that we freely tolerate gays, lesbians, and bi people using the same gender's locker rooms is another argument not only why trans people in bathrooms should be totally OK, but also why the idea of separate locker rooms for men and women/boys and girls is pretty stupid to begin with.
Click to expand...
There is a difference to gay dudes in dudes locker rooms as there is no potential threat, and a trans woman waving their donger around in the same locker room as my young niece.

The second I am not going to be as easy going with and will stop.
 
Boudicca90 said:
I think the problem is that everybody has a gender identity, but if your gender identity doesn't ever conflict with your birth sex, you never think about it.

Gender identity is all about how you see yourself and your gender, it is subjective and not something socially imposed (that would be more like gender roles and presentation).
Click to expand...


A so-called gender identity is nothing more than one's personality traits being compared to a set of regressive sexist stereotypes. Have whatever personality traits you like, it won't change your actual sex.
 
Rolfe said:
Here's another one. Why is this not OK?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-54036637
Click to expand...
"The post read: "I have built my life on a violent anti-black lie.""
Ms Krug described her behaviour as "the very epitome of violence, of thievery and appropriation, of the myriad ways in which non-Black people continue to use and abuse Black identities and cultures."

Oh look, the 'words are violence' nonsense again :rolleyes: .
 
d4m10n said:
One major problem with this is that many women (who have no objection to being seen as such) do not necessarily have a strong sense of subjective gender identity, and may indeed see gender as something socially imposed upon them rather than something inherent to their sense of self.
Click to expand...
The real problem I see is that you confuse "gender" and "gender identity", something Boudicca also did. "Gender" is socially imposed, "gender identity" is a subjective sense of self. And yes, the word "gender" is sometimes used as a synonym for "gender identity" but if you want to make any sense of this stuff, you really should try to keep them separate.

Many people do not experience in incongruity between their (biological) sex and their gender identity and feel one is simply a natural result of the other. To them, the subjective neatly flows from the objective and those things don't seem like two different concepts. That's what being "cisgendered" means. We don't know the biological mechanisms that cause people to become cisgendered anymore than we know the biological mechanisms that cause so many people people to be heterosexual -- another thing that is highly correlated with biological sex -- but we do know that biological mechanisms can in some individuals not work quite right.
 
Boudicca90 said:
I think the problem is that everybody has a gender identity, but if your gender identity doesn't ever conflict with your birth sex, you never think about it.
Click to expand...
Can we unpack this a bit? If someone hadn't heard of gender identity, how could one explain it to them without referencing gender itself? Was Ms. Cat correct to refer to it as
"...what you want other people to perceive your sex to be," or do we need something more?

Earthborn said:
The real problem I see is that you confuse "gender" and "gender identity", something Boudicca also did.
Click to expand...
Not to mention Wikipedia, which defines gender identityWP in terms of genderWP, and vice-versa.
 
Last edited:
Earthborn said:
The real problem I see is that you confuse "gender" and "gender identity", something Boudicca also did. "Gender" is socially imposed, "gender identity" is a subjective sense of self. And yes, the word "gender" is sometimes used as a synonym for "gender identity" but if you want to make any sense of this stuff, you really should try to keep them separate.

Many people do not experience in incongruity between their (biological) sex and their gender identity and feel one is simply a natural result of the other. To them, the subjective neatly flows from the objective and those things don't seem like two different concepts. That's what being "cisgendered" means. We don't know the biological mechanisms that cause people to become cisgendered anymore than we know the biological mechanisms that cause so many people people to be heterosexual -- another thing that is highly correlated with biological sex -- but we do know that biological mechanisms can in some individuals not work quite right.
Click to expand...

I see gender identity as a huge part of gender, but you are right that it also encompasses things like roles and presentation, so it's not entirely the same. Before I transitioned I had a female gender identity but I presented my gender as male, now I have a female gender identity and a female gender. I think we are on the same page on this?
 
Rolfe said:
Nobody is born in the wrong body.
Click to expand...
"Born in the wrong body" is just an expression. One that is going out of fashion quickly in favour of "Identify as"

Do we treat any of these delusional conditions by re-ordering all social norms to align with the delusion? We do not. Why is this one any different?
Click to expand...
Mainly because transsexuals are tested for such delusional conditions and are only diagnosed as "transsexual" if they do not have them.

Men, make space for gender nonconforming men in male spaces, because they are male.
Click to expand...
Translation: Men, force gender nonconforming men to conform to your gender.

Makes perfect sense. :oldroll:
 
cullennz said:
There is a difference to gay dudes in dudes locker rooms as there is no potential threat, and a trans woman waving their donger around in the same locker room as my young niece.

The second I am not going to be as easy going with and will stop.
Click to expand...



Of course there's a potential threat (if one is looking to find a threat, that is).

To repurpose your example: how about a gay guy in the men's changing rooms coming on to your young nephew as he gets changed?


I find it somewhat difficult to understand how you can identify a perceived threat of "a trans woman waving their donger around (sensitively put...) in the same locker room as your young neice", yet at the same time cannot identify a perceived threat of a gay man coming on to your young nephew as he's getting changed?

In reality, of course, these perceptions of threats primarily exist within the imaginations of those who are looking to find a "threat". In reality, thousands and thousands of gay men use male locker rooms all over the world every day, without coming on to young boys; and likewise, I'm going to suggest that any perception of trans women "waving their donger around" in front of young girls is a somewhat hysterical (no pun intended...) notion, which in practice might only ever happen in a vanishingly small number of instances.


(And in any case, if either of those two situations ever DID arise in practice, you would obviously have the absolute right to ask the authorities to step in......)
 
You appear to be trying to mix something I don't want my niece to have to deal with with at a young age. And some gay dude grooming adolescents for sex.
 
Earthborn said:
Seani certainly does not "fit in" the ladies room, and probably realises that. If they were a transman, they would look practically identical and also not fit in. Many transwomen would fit in. I think if we are to have segregated restrooms, people should go to the place where they most fit in. You have repeatedly claimed that you disagree and expect people to segregate themselves based on other criteria.
Click to expand...

"Where they most fit in" seems like a *terrible* criteria. Unless you really want to perpetuate cisnormativity, and make restroom harassment of transsexuals the de facto standard.
 
theprestige said:
"Where they most fit in" seems like a *terrible* criteria. Unless you really want to perpetuate cisnormativity, and make restroom harassment of transsexuals the de facto standard.
Click to expand...

It's also meaningless. Different people will disagree about where someone most fits in. So how is this judged? At best it just kicks the can down the road, so we can argue about what it means to "fit in".
 
It's judged by the majority, which will always be cisnormative.

Or it's judged by trans fiat, which is exactly the problem we're trying to solve.

Hell, even Boudica's solution boils down to "papers please".

Honestly I think it would be a lot easier if gender dysphoria were recognized as a serious disability, with necessary concessions on that basis. Seeing eye dogs. Handicapped placards. Etc.
 
Last edited:
The Atheist said:
Except for the ones who ask to be called "they".

Which bugs the hell of the Grammar Nazi in me.
Click to expand...

Non-binary people are a good example of why "where they most fit in" works well.

Their gender presentation might not easily fit into one gender or another, so the best situation in that case would be to choose the restroom that best fits their gender expression at the time.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
It's also meaningless. Different people will disagree about where someone most fits in. So how is this judged? At best it just kicks the can down the road, so we can argue about what it means to "fit in".
Click to expand...

As a purely practical measure, it's not bad, though, with a caveat.

So, someone needs to go to the bathroom. They're out and about, dressed like a woman. They go in, maybe another woman in the bathroom is a bit suspicious, but isn't sure so, when all is said and done, no big deal. If he had used the men's room, it would be very obvious. No telling what would happen, but it couldn't be good. Maybe it wasn't such a bad idea to use the ladies'.

On the other hand, high school transgirl - locker room. Gym class. Swim practice. Whatever.

Everyone knows who she is. Everyone knows she's a transgirl. It really doesn't matter what she looks like or how she behaves. She can't fit in, no matter what she does. The girls all know that there is a male person watching.


ETA: It's also difficult to turn into a policy, but perhaps that's not all that big of a problem.
 
Last edited:
Boudicca90 said:
Non-binary people are a good example of why "where they most fit in" works well.

Their gender presentation might not easily fit into one gender or another, so the best situation in that case would be to choose the restroom that best fits their gender expression at the time.
Click to expand...

"Best fits" according to whom?

And what happened to your proposal that crossover be restricted to people who have taken medical steps toward transitioning?

Now it seems like you've settled on a standard of whatever people think they can get away with at the time.
 
Boudicca90 said:
Non-binary people are a good example of why "where they most fit in" works well.

Their gender presentation might not easily fit into one gender or another, so the best situation in that case would be to choose the restroom that best fits their gender expression at the time.
Click to expand...
The "at the time" bit is one I personally find a bit silly.
 
theprestige said:
It's judged by the majority, which will always be cisnormative.

Or it's judged by trans fiat, which is exactly the problem we're trying to solve.

Hell, even Boudica's solution boils down to "papers please".

Honestly I think it would be a lot easier if gender dysphoria were recognized as a serious disability, with necessary concessions on that basis. Seeing eye dogs. Handicapped placards. Etc.
Click to expand...

I'm not advocating checking drivers licences or birth certificates before using any restrooms or locker rooms, and it wouldn't be useful anyway, since someone with a driver's licence here in CA with the gender marker X instead of M or F wouldn't belong in either that way.

And gender dysphoria was already recognized as a mental illness before, when it was called Gender Identity Disorder. I don't want that at all. We have thankfully moved away from that, much like we did demonizing homosexuality.
 
theprestige said:
"Best fits" according to whom?

And what happened to your proposal that crossover be restricted to people who have taken medical steps toward transitioning?

Now it seems like you've settled on a standard of whatever people think they can get away with at the time.
Click to expand...

Nobody has to medically transition if they don't want to, I've never supported that.

I meant at least begun transitioning as in living as the gender they see themselves as. Hormones and surgery aren't for everybody and aren't necessary.
 
Carte blanc for the feelz of the moment, a truly flexible standard that even legal protection can't cover.
Not a solution.
 
cullennz said:
You appear to be trying to mix something I don't want my niece to have to deal with with at a young age. And some gay dude grooming adolescents for sex.
Click to expand...


:confused:

I'm comparing a) something you don't want your niece to have to deal with at a young age with b) something you don't want your (fictional) nephew to have to deal with at a young age.

And I'm purely setting up the comparison in order to illustrate the point: that in both instances, a hypothetical situation might arise which you might not want your niece or (fictional) nephew to be exposed to.

But since your hang-up seems to be over the (somewhat hyperbolic and unrealistic) scenario of a pre-op trans woman "waving their donger around" in the women's locker room in front of your young niece....

.... let's try another comparator. Suppose there was a woman with an ileostomy bag. Or a woman with an abnormally enlarged clitoris. Would you be similarly outraged by the idea of such women exposing their condition to your young niece as they undressed in the locker room? Because I can easily see how, in both cases, they might potentially cause some distress and/or confusion to a young person. Maybe - in your view - we should make such women remove their clothing in some other place, away from impressionable young eyes...?
 
LondonJohn said:
:confused:



I'm comparing a) something you don't want your niece to have to deal with at a young age with b) something you don't want your (fictional) nephew to have to deal with at a young age.



And I'm purely setting up the comparison in order to illustrate the point: that in both instances, a hypothetical situation might arise which you might not want your niece or (fictional) nephew to be exposed to.



But since your hang-up seems to be over the (somewhat hyperbolic and unrealistic) scenario of a pre-op trans woman "waving their donger around" in the women's locker room in front of your young niece....



.... let's try another comparator. Suppose there was a woman with an ileostomy bag. Or a woman with an abnormally enlarged clitoris. Would you be similarly outraged by the idea of such women exposing their condition to your young niece as they undressed in the locker room? Because I can easily see how, in both cases, they might potentially cause some distress and/or confusion to a young person. Maybe - in your view - we should make such women remove their clothing in some other place, away from impressionable young eyes...?
Click to expand...
No I wouldn't.

It isn't someone waving their thing around, who Boudicca90 said earlier can change their gender expression depending on mood "at that time"

Post: 2269
 
cullennz said:
No I wouldn't.

It isn't someone waving their thing around, who Boudicca90 said earlier can change their gender expression depending on mood "at that time"

Post: 2269
Click to expand...



What is this ongoing concern with the somewhat extreme notional example of "a trans woman waving their donger around"? What if, say, it's (the far more realistic possibility of) a trans woman merely briefly exposing her "donger" as she changes? Or your young niece noticing a bulge in the swimming costume of a trans woman?

And as a general question: are you concerned about anything/everything that might alarm your young niece in the locker room - because I can't quite see the logic in the idea of being selectively concerned? And if so, then why wouldn't you be similarly concerned about a woman with an oversized clitoris "waving it around" in front of your young niece. Or a woman with an ileostomy "waving her half-filled faeces collection bag around" in front of your young niece?


Coupled to which, as has been pointed out several times in this thread: if anyone is acting in an inconsiderate manner in a locker room (including the notional example of "a trans woman waving their donger around"), other people using the locker room have the right to require staff to address the situation and to ask the person in question to desist or to leave the locker room.
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
Erm, it was you who wrote the words:



"a trans woman waving their donger around"





Coupled to which, as has been pointed out several times in this thread: if anyone is acting in an inconsiderate manner in a locker room (including the notional example of "a trans woman waving their donger around"), other people using the locker room have the right to require staff to address the situation and to ask the person in question to desist or to leave the locker room.
Click to expand...
Yes.

And I don't really want her to put up with witnessing arguments between staff and patrons either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom