Cont: Transwomen are not women part XII (also merged)

Status
Not open for further replies.
d4m10n said:
Can we safely assume that it doesn't matter what place or service we swap in here?

Gyms or swimming ponds or music festivals or golf leagues or locker rooms or sleeper cars or JjimjilbangWP or what-have-you?
Click to expand...

We don't have a concise term for "Publicly accessible place but one where a level of privacy is to be expected" and it is making this discussion a bit cumbersome.
 
Last edited:
TurkeysGhost said:
I've already covered this, but it usually takes more than "membership required" to be considered a private club in the context of being exempt from anti-discrimination law.

Being a women's only gym, even one that requires membership, is probably not exclusive enough to count as a true private club in the eyes of the law.
Click to expand...

Private club means an organization, whether incorporated or not, which is the owner, lessee, or occupant of a building or portion thereof used exclusively for club purposes at all times, which is operated solely for a recreational, fraternal, social, patriotic, political, benevolent, or athletic purpose, but not for pecuniary gain, and which only sells alcoholic beverages incidental to its operation. The affairs and management of the organization are conducted by a board of directors, executive committee, or similar body chosen by the members at an annual meeting. The organization has established bylaws and/or a constitution to govern its activities. The organization has been granted an exemption from the payment of federal income tax as a club under 26 U.S.C. Section 501.

https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/private-club

I can't see how it wouldn't fit the legal definition, unless its a for-profit enterprise.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Okay but it's not unfair or bigoted to ask what the point is of all these terms if every time we ask for clarification on what they mean or how they work we just get a glib "LOL don't worry, it's not your concern" style retort.
Click to expand...
Which terms? I'm pretty sure I was using the usual terms in the usual way.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
We don't have a concise term for "Publicly accessible place but one where a level of privacy is to be expected" and it is making this discussion a bit cumbersome.
Click to expand...
Even if female people wanted their own spaces for reasons unrelated to modesty or privacy, I'd be inclined to let them have their spaces without prescribing public policy permitting people with penises.
 
TurkeysGhost said:
I wish anti-discrimination policies were rigorously enforced, including against women's only gyms
Click to expand...

You have never said what harm women-only gyms do.

I understand and am sympathetic for the desire for women's only gyms
Click to expand...

No you don't and no you aren't.

but the need for them is a pretty unambiguous sign of societal failure to enforce the reasonable norm that women should be able to exist in public without being sexually harassed.
Click to expand...

Women don't get to have nice things because they wouldn't need them if the world was perfect. Galaxy brain right there.
 
lobosrul5 said:
SOME men do not want gay men in their bathroom or locker room. This is a public policy issue, and they've been told too bad dude, homophobia no longer has a place in our society.
Click to expand...

Not really. The central problem with discriminating against gay men is enforcement. How do you know someone is gay? Would they self-ID?

The trans bathroom debate shouldn't even be a thing. There are so many other reforms that need to take place: Stalls should have red and green lights overhead to indicate occupied vs. unoccupied. Eliminate all gaps in the stalls. Play music to drown out butt-horns and splashing. These designs are not utopian; they've been adopted in civilized areas. Ideally, we would also just eliminate sex segregation, but pushing for that change now might get one branded as "transphobic." The simple fact of the matter is that women's restrooms tend to have longer lines. Universal bathrooms would reduce wait times for women.
 
lobosrul5 said:
Private club means an organization, whether incorporated or not, which is the owner, lessee, or occupant of a building or portion thereof used exclusively for club purposes at all times, which is operated solely for a recreational, fraternal, social, patriotic, political, benevolent, or athletic purpose, but not for pecuniary gain, and which only sells alcoholic beverages incidental to its operation. The affairs and management of the organization are conducted by a board of directors, executive committee, or similar body chosen by the members at an annual meeting. The organization has established bylaws and/or a constitution to govern its activities. The organization has been granted an exemption from the payment of federal income tax as a club under 26 U.S.C. Section 501.

https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/private-club

I can't see how it wouldn't fit the legal definition, unless its a for-profit enterprise.
Click to expand...

We are talking about for-profit organizations.
 
Ziggurat said:
Women don't get to have nice things because they wouldn't need them if the world was perfect. Galaxy brain right there.
Click to expand...

It's really a matter of not robbing Peter to pay Paul. You don't let women engage in sex discrimination as a recourse for them facing sex discrimination, that's just kicking the can down the road.
 
TurkeysGhost said:
We are talking about for-profit organizations.
Click to expand...

WHAT IS THE FEMALE FIGHT CLUB?
The Female Fight Club, a non-profit fitness club exclusively for women located in the Riverdale section of the Bronx in NYC,

https://femalefightclubnyc.com/

Golds is for profit. But they don't operate womens only gyms, they operate womens only areas in their gyms if I'm not mistaken. ETA: it would be pretty silly to even argue against such things. My gym has a daycare for people to leave their kids. Can I sue them because I'm not allowed in that section of the gym, I'm being discriminated against whoa is me!
 
Last edited:
Cain said:
Not really. The central problem with discriminating against gay men is enforcement. How do you know someone is gay? Would they self-ID?

The trans bathroom debate shouldn't even be a thing. There are so many other reforms that need to take place: Stalls should have red and green lights overhead to indicate occupied vs. unoccupied. Eliminate all gaps in the stalls. Play music to drown out butt-horns and splashing. These designs are not utopian; they've been adopted in civilized areas. Ideally, we would also just eliminate sex segregation, but pushing for that change now might get one branded as "transphobic." The simple fact of the matter is that women's restrooms tend to have longer lines. Universal bathrooms would reduce wait times for women.
Click to expand...

Sounds rather Japanese.
 
JoeMorgue said:
And again we're back the impossible triangle.

1. The people with the penises must be kept separate from the people with the vaginas in some cases for the safety/privacy/competitiveness/etc of the people with vaginas.
2. We can't check for penis and vaginas at the literal or metaphorical door because we all agree that would just be horrible and putting it on the honor system would be pointless.
3. We've removed everything external that identifies a person with a penis or a person with a vagina. People with specific genitals are not expected or required to look, act, identity, present, code, etc in any specific way.

And again this is not about what anyone thinks about any one of the tent polls. You just have, HAVE, ******* HAVE to accept that all 3 of them can't be meaningfully, functionally true on a societal level at the same time.

At least one of them has to go, or at least be minimized or changed to a radical way.
Click to expand...
Maybe a verified photo of one's genitals alongside the face on the passport would work.
This could extend to all forms of photo ID.
I am not sure if I am being serious.
 
TurkeysGhost said:
It's really a matter of not robbing Peter to pay Paul. You don't let women engage in sex discrimination as a recourse for them facing sex discrimination, that's just kicking the can down the road.
Click to expand...

Perfect is the enemy of good.

And you still haven't said what harm is done.
 
JoeMorgue said:
1. The people with the penises must be kept separate from the people with the vaginas in some cases for the safety/privacy/competitiveness/etc of the people with vaginas.
Click to expand...
There are at least three approaches here, not just two. Fundamentalists and (most) conservatives will say "must," libertarians will say "may," and progressive social justice activists will say "must not." Both the conservatives and the progressives suffer from the belief that everyone needs to do things in a way that upholds their own values. Some of us are okay with letting business owners do their own thing, especially when that means giving historically oppressed groups of people a space for themselves.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
The primary obstacle to male gyms isn't political opposition but market share. There's far less demand for male gyms than female gyms. Most guys either don't care or want mixed, so going all-male is a really hard business model, much harder than all-female. But they have existed.
Click to expand...

The feminists largely forced the males-only clubs to admit women back in the 1980s and 1990s. There was a big push because the idea was that these male bastions were where the patriarchy lurked. The NY Athletic Club admitted their first female members in 1989, after 121 years as a sausage fest. Augusta National actually made it to 2012 before they admitted two women (one was Condoleezza Rice).
 
Last edited:
Francesca R said:
Trans rights activists want sex segregation. As you know and as has been pointed out ad nauseam.

According to you (and JoeMorgue) trans rights activists are racists and homophobes.

Or just maybe your pathetic reflexive insistent arguments have shot themselves in the foot. What toxic bile indeed.
Click to expand...


Trans rights activists want gender segregation, not sex segregation. But aside from that (and aside from my rejection of your strangely-thought-out position in which you claim trans advocates are racists and homophobes), thanks for illustrating my point about this thread.
 
LondonJohn said:
Trans rights activists want gender segregation, not sex segregation. But aside from that (and aside from my rejection of your strangely-thought-out position in which you claim trans advocates are racists and homophobes), thanks for illustrating my point about this thread.
Click to expand...

What is your view of Women’s Shelters, where women are protected from violence and predation? Mermaids objects to them being sex segregated. And you?
 
Samson said:
Maybe a verified photo of one's genitals alongside the face on the passport would work.
This could extend to all forms of photo ID.
I am not sure if I am being serious.
Click to expand...


That's actually a brilliant idea. For a sketch.

One obvious wrinkle that would need to ironed out is how to properly depict size. On the other hand, not ironing it out opens up interesting plot/dialog points in the sketch, so maybe keep away the iron after all.


eta: What a brilliant idea, Samson. Hmm, like you say Cheese when you click this pic, what would you say for the other pic? ...Depends, I suppose, on whether you're the sort that 'smiles' for the camera!


eta: I just can't --- CAN'T --- walk away from this outstanding idea. How does the idea of being of a billionaire strike you? Not too bad, right? If this isn't a killer idea for the dating app to skewer all other dating apps, then I don't know what is.

All we need to do now --- "we", you and I both, remember that, without my loud (raucous?) you'd have forgotten all about it, like Einstein daydreaming about the speed of light and weird freak twins aging at different rates, and going back to designing filing cabinets for the patent office, or whatever it is he did --- all WE need to do now, is think up an ENORMOUSLY brilliant name for our soon to be HUGELY successful dating app.
 
Last edited:
Brainster said:
The feminists largely forced the males-only clubs to admit women back in the 1980s and 1990s. There was a big push because the idea was that these male bastions were where the patriarchy lurked. The NY Athletic Club admitted their first female members in 1989, after 121 years as a sausage fest. Augusta National actually made it to 2012 before they admitted two women (one was Condoleezza Rice).
Click to expand...

As I vaguely recall, Christopher Hitchens argued that there was a difference between women being prohibited from becoming members of any golf clubs in Georgia versus being prohibited from just one (Augusta). But isn't Augusta by far the most prestigious? Appropriate criticisms were leveled at Obama for talking shop with men when he made his golf rounds.

Unrelatedly, Hitchens has also argued that conservative women are sexier, citing as examples [trigger warning]

Margaret Thatcher and Jeane Kirkpatrick. Ew. He claimed the latter "made Phyllis Schlafly look like a faggot."
 
Cain said:
As I vaguely recall, Christopher Hitchens argued that there was a difference between women being prohibited from becoming members of any golf clubs in Georgia versus being prohibited from just one (Augusta). But isn't Augusta by far the most prestigious? Appropriate criticisms were leveled at Obama for talking shop with men when he made his golf rounds.

Unrelatedly, Hitchens has also argued that conservative women are sexier, citing as examples [trigger warning]

Margaret Thatcher and Jeane Kirkpatrick. Ew. He claimed the latter "made Phyllis Schlafly look like a faggot."
Click to expand...

Let's just say that Hitch had different tastes in women from me. That said, even AI agrees--conservative women seem happier and more attractive than liberal women.
 
My wife used to be case manager at a men's shelter. (Homeless shelter, not abuse.) They also took in men given parole. There was another men's shelter across town.

There are/were also women's shelters. I know one was for "women in transition."

Targeting the specific demographic makes managing the shelter easier and reduces the need for monitoring and security. Makes sleeping arrangements simpler. (The shelter had shared rooms with a couple bunk beds. It wasn't cots arranged in a large common room.) There was no "security" staff.

It seems like some feel that these targeted shelters should be illegal?
 
TurkeysGhost said:
I don't know if this is directed at me, but in the interest of speaking directly:

I wish anti-discrimination policies were rigorously enforced, including against women's only gyms, which wouldn't be necessary if sexually harassing gym chodes were treated appropriately by said rigorous enforcement of anti-discrimination policy.

I understand and am sympathetic for the desire for women's only gyms, but the need for them is a pretty unambiguous sign of societal failure to enforce the reasonable norm that women should be able to exist in public without being sexually harassed.
Click to expand...
I think it's more complicated than just sexual harassment.

Some of the women's gyms I've seen (including Curves) being female only provide a modesty benefit. They cater to people who are not super fit. An over-weight woman may feel more comfortable performing exercises and wearing the related outfits without men present, even if those men are not jerks and are not harassing her. In other words, it caters to a segment that's self-conscious.

Planet fitness tries to cater to the self-conscious demographic as well, but takes a different approach that targets both sexes. (Men can also be self-conscious when observed by women.)

Most gyms don't allow harassment, but there is no policy that can be put in place to address someone who is self-conscious about their body. Providing a comfortable space for people to exercise is a positive thing.
 
smartcooky said:
Alison Fisher - 61 WPBA titles, four time world 9-Ball champion, 11-time world snooker champion. In 2005 near the beginning of the peak of her playing career, she earned nearly US$250,000 on the circuit, more than any other player, male or female in that year. She both regularly played against and beat top male players. Fisher is 5ft 4in, a lot shorter than most male snooker and pool players.

Height didn't seem much of a barrier to these two women.
Click to expand...

She was successful in pool, not snooker.

Throughout the 1980s, she made various attempts to qualify for the main Men's snooker tour, which contained around 128 players at the time, but these attempts were unsuccessful.
Click to expand...

Pool table height - 30 inches
Snooker table height - 34 inches
 
JoeMorgue said:
At lot of discussion (and this is going to be hard to put into words so actually read for context and don't just hover over the "how can you even say such a thing" shortcut on your keyboard) does seem to treat women as having some special kind of victimhood that nobody else gets and that's... weird.
Click to expand...

:jaw-dropp

I think this sets a new record on this thread.
 
JoeMorgue said:
I get this is supposed to be some level of mic drop shocking suggestion that all our jaws are supposed to drop at but... sorta. Kinda. Yes with a no. No with a but...

I mean "I have to be away not from the person who hurt me but their entire demographic in order to heal" would be seen as somewhere on the scale between obviously wrong to just weird in literally any other scenario.

We don't have all white shelters (yes I'm using the comparison again, die mad about it everyone) for people who were mugged by black people. We don't kick Muslims out of support groups for 9/11. We don't keep all adults always from children who have been victimized by adults.

In literally every other case dealing with a victim a crime assuming the victim is capable of understanding that a person hurt them and not a whole demographic is not seen as shocking or callous.

At lot of discussion (and this is going to be hard to put into words so actually read for context and don't just hover over the "how can you even say such a thing" shortcut on your keyboard) does seem to treat women as having some special kind of victimhood that nobody else gets and that's... weird.

Think I'm wrong? Okay. Name me one other context in which we separate, long term, victims of crimes from the entire demographic of the person who assaulted them so they can heal. I bet you can't/

Replace the woman in "Woman's Shelter" with any other vaguely comparable demographic noun, repeat it back to me, and then look eye with honesty and integrity and tell it doesn't sound a little weird.
Click to expand...

Maybe you need to talk to more women.
 
d4m10n said:
Even if female people wanted their own spaces for reasons unrelated to modesty or privacy, I'd be inclined to let them have their spaces without prescribing public policy permitting people with penises.
Click to expand...
Women have been fighting against sex segregation since men started their sex segregated clubs and pursuits. Today in a country like the UK it would be many steps backward for women to lose the legal and cultural rights they have gained if we started again to allow sex segregated clubs etc.
 
Darat said:
Women have been fighting against sex segregation since men started their sex segregated clubs and pursuits. Today in a country like the UK it would be many steps backward for women to lose the legal and cultural rights they have gained if we started again to allow sex segregated clubs etc.
Click to expand...

For clarity, sex segregation is allowed in certain circumstances:

You can only provide a separate-sex service if a joint service would be less effective and providing that separate service is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. For example, a legitimate aim could be the health and safety of others. You must then show that your action is a proportionate way to achieve that aim. This requires that you balance the impact on all service users of providing services separately.

For example, a charity provides separate homeless hostels for men and women.
Click to expand...

Courts will decide on a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim on a case by case basis.
 
LondonJohn said:
Trans rights activists want gender segregation
Click to expand...
40 odd years ago lots of people wanted homosexuals segregated out of the way as well. 60ish years back plenty of folks thought it was fine to keep black people separate from white folks places.

Trans rights activists are therefore homophobes and racists according to you.

The above is your argumentation, not mine.
 
lionking said:
What is your view of Women’s Shelters, where women are protected from violence and predation? Mermaids objects to them being sex segregated. And you?
Click to expand...

On the basis that LJ considers "women" can be either male or female then the idea of "Women's' shelters" being segregated by biological sex is of course nonsense...

For those who still consider "women" to be female they make perfect sense.
 
Consider this - a woman has been abused physically and emotionally for a couple of decades by her partner. She eventually decides it has to stop and takes herself and her two children, who are also the victims of domestic abuse to a sex segregated "woman only" refuge, the children are fraternal twins aged 16, one female, one male. Should she be turned away or should her and her daughter be accepted and the 16 year old male be turned away?

That is the type of problem that comes up every day for victims of domestic violence and those trying to provide support for victims. Our (talking about the UK) provisions for victims of domestic violence are woefully and shamefully underfunded, thousands of victims, especially those with children are to all extent and purposes forced to go back to the abuser because there is no support. Add in the woefully underfunded mental health services and the situation becomes even more bleak.
 
Darat said:
Consider this - a woman has been abused physically and emotionally for a couple of decades by her partner. She eventually decides it has to stop and takes herself and her two children, who are also the victims of domestic abuse to a sex segregated "woman only" refuge, the children are fraternal twins aged 16, one female, one male. Should she be turned away or should her and her daughter be accepted and the 16 year old male be turned away?
Click to expand...
You use the word woman, but also refer to sex segregated. How are you defining woman? a female? an adult(over what age?) female? someone who considers themselves to be female? And how are you defining sex? biologically? or by feelings?

Sorry, you have proposed a specific scenario for your own purposes within this debate, so it seems only reasonable for you to define your terms specifically.

As an aside I'd say, within your defined scenario and without further clarification as requested above, that the male twin is stuck either way, unless they are prepared to declare themselves to feel female. In that case they can be let in if you are defining woman as someone who considers themselves female and sex as dependent on feelings.

But perhaps that's the answer you were hoping for so you could demolish it...
That is the type of problem that comes up every day for victims of domestic violence and those trying to provide support for victims. Our (talking about the UK) provisions for victims of domestic violence are woefully and shamefully underfunded, thousands of victims, especially those with children are to all extent and purposes forced to go back to the abuser because there is no support. Add in the woefully underfunded mental health services and the situation becomes even more bleak.
Click to expand...

Yep, but what additional refuge provisions for domestic violence victims would you propose that would eliminate the dilemma you describe above? (assuming you don't think it's off topic for this thread...)
 
Lplus said:
You use the word woman, but also refer to sex segregated. How are you defining woman? a female? an adult(over what age?) female? someone who considers themselves to be female? And how are you defining sex? biologically? or by feelings?

Sorry, you have proposed a specific scenario for your own purposes within this debate, so it seems only reasonable for you to define your terms specifically. ...snip...
Click to expand...
Always happy to provide my definitions, I'm using the words the same way I did earlier i.e. ...In the following- I am using "sex" to mean the biological sex, the XX and XY thing. I am using "female" to mean biological women, male to mean biological men... In the hypothetical (but is something that happens) I am using woman to mean female as per the sex segregation in some women's refuges. I' reword it if it helps:

Consider this - a female has been abused physically and emotionally for a couple of decades by her partner. She eventually decides it has to stop and takes herself and her two children, who are also the victims of domestic abuse to a sex segregated "woman only" refuge, the children are fraternal twins aged 16, one female, one male. Should she be turned away or should her and her female child be accepted and the 16 year old male be turned away?
 
Aber said:
She was successful in pool, not snooker.
Click to expand...

Wrong!

SNOOKER
‎‎1. Winner 1985 Women's World Snooker Championship v Stacey Hillyard 5–1
‎‎ 2. Winner 1986 Women's World Snooker Championship v Sue LeMaich 5–0
‎‎ 3. Winner 1988 Women's World Snooker Championship v Ann-Marie Farren 6–1
‎‎ 4. Winner 1989 Women's World Snooker Championship v Ann-Marie Farren 6–5
‎‎ 5. Winner 1991 World Masters Women's Doubles with Stacey Hillyard v Karen Corr / Ann-Marie Farren 5–2
‎‎ 6. Winner 1991 World Masters Mixed Doubles with Steve Davis v Jimmy White / Caroline Walch 6–3
‎‎ 7. Winner 1991 World Mixed Doubles Championship with Steve Davis v Stephen Hendry / Stacey Hillyard 5–4
‎‎ 8. Winner 1991 Haverhill Classic v Kelly Fisher 3–0
‎‎ 9. Winner 1991 Women's World Snooker Championship v Karen Corr 8–2
10. Winner 1993 Women's World Snooker Championship v Stacey Hillyard 9–3
11. Winner 1994 Women's World Snooker Championship v Stacey Hillyard 9–3
12. Winner 1994 Haverhill Classic v Kelly Fisher 3–0
13. Winner 1994 Regal Masters v Kelly Fisher 4–0
14. Winner 1994 Llanelli Classic v Stacey Hillyard 4–2
15. Winner 1994 New Berkshire Classic v Kim Shaw 3–0
16. Winner 1995 Bailey Homes Ladies Classic v Karen Corr 4–1
17. Winner 1995 Regal Welsh v Kim Shaw 4–1
18 Winner 1995 UK Ladies Championship v Karen Corr 4–1

You have a somewhat "unique" definition of "not successful"

Aber said:
Pool table height - 30 inches
Snooker table height - 34 inches
Click to expand...

and...
 
Last edited:
TomB said:
I think it's more complicated than just sexual harassment.

Some of the women's gyms I've seen (including Curves) being female only provide a modesty benefit. They cater to people who are not super fit. An over-weight woman may feel more comfortable performing exercises and wearing the related outfits without men present, even if those men are not jerks and are not harassing her. In other words, it caters to a segment that's self-conscious.

Planet fitness tries to cater to the self-conscious demographic as well, but takes a different approach that targets both sexes. (Men can also be self-conscious when observed by women.)

Most gyms don't allow harassment, but there is no policy that can be put in place to address someone who is self-conscious about their body. Providing a comfortable space for people to exercise is a positive thing.
Click to expand...

Well, you say it yourself, planet fitness has an approach to this that does not rely on violating anti-discrimination law.
 
lobosrul5 said:
WHAT IS THE FEMALE FIGHT CLUB?
The Female Fight Club, a non-profit fitness club exclusively for women located in the Riverdale section of the Bronx in NYC,

https://femalefightclubnyc.com/

Golds is for profit. But they don't operate womens only gyms, they operate womens only areas in their gyms if I'm not mistaken. ETA: it would be pretty silly to even argue against such things. My gym has a daycare for people to leave their kids. Can I sue them because I'm not allowed in that section of the gym, I'm being discriminated against whoa is me!
Click to expand...

Perhaps that's why it's kosher with the relevant laws. I've said as much that I'm not even sure how places like Curves can operate legally as a women's only gym, and in some states it seems they can't and instead rely on their marketing more than anything so that customers self-select.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom