ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags New Zealand incidents , transgender incidents , transgender issues

Closed Thread
Old 12th June 2019, 04:02 PM   #3001
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 34,721
Originally Posted by wasapi View Post
This. Yes, very much this.
TM's post very much misunderstands the nature and point of Joe's argument. Please don't double up that misunderstanding.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th June 2019, 04:05 PM   #3002
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,160
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
That doesn't sound quite right. The need is access to bathrooms. Their desire is to have access to the bathrooms designated for particular sexes.
Seems like, under this specific wording, the solution would be for people to go into the restrooms that fit their biological setup.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th June 2019, 04:10 PM   #3003
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 3,907
Originally Posted by TomB View Post
Yes, but the renovation needed to emulate the bank of portapotties is not to build new bathrooms, as Tragic Monkey suggests, but to make the stalls more private and the common area more public. Shouldn't really be that expensive, but it's an idea that's been rejected by at least one of the sides in this thread.
And that despite well-designed examples of the concept in practice.

Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
The bathroom cubicles shown in post 1833 and further upthread at post 1623 have fully private individual toilet stalls with secure locks, and a unisex common area for washing up.
I hear there was also a really cool unisex bathroom at Fabric (nightclub) in London but photos are difficult to come by.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th June 2019, 04:13 PM   #3004
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 49,067
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Seems like, under this specific wording, the solution would be for people to go into the restrooms that fit their biological setup.
Read again. The point of that passage is to contrast "need" and "desire", not to suggest they are the same thing and can fulfilled the same way.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th June 2019, 06:46 PM   #3005
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,323
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
A hierarchy is a social arrangement in an organization of multiple individuals. I am suggesting the purpose of that arrangement is the division of labor. Which includes mating in social organizations like that of bees, elephant seals, and lions.

Outside of the context of a social group what could a hierarchy even be?
When we have division of labour such that you farm and I build plows and you trade food for my plow, that makes sense. How does division of labour work with respect to reproduction? You can't trade your children with me and you having children doesn't do me any good.

In the case of bees the analogy works, but as someone else said it doesn't work in mammals because your reproduction isn't my good.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th June 2019, 06:54 PM   #3006
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 49,067
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
When we have division of labour such that you farm and I build plows and you trade food for my plow, that makes sense. How does division of labour work with respect to reproduction? You can't trade your children with me and you having children doesn't do me any good.

In the case of bees the analogy works, but as someone else said it doesn't work in mammals because your reproduction isn't my good.
Again, I also I mentioned lions and elephant seals. Are those not mammals? And I only brought it up because someone wanted to talk about non-human animals. I thought it was pretty clear I wasn't referring to human social arrangements, but some animal ones.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th June 2019, 07:52 PM   #3007
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 23,485
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Buddhism. I can't claim credit. Also the Cynics of classical Greece.
I think you mean the Stoics.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th June 2019, 08:36 PM   #3008
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 23,485
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
We are willing to spend twice the cost of a bathroom to accommodate a social need. If there is a social need that justifies a third bathroom then is the objection to the cost the only thing preventing implementation? If so, what is the cut off on cost where it becomes unacceptable? If X is the cost of one bathroom and we currently have two it means 2X is acceptable. But if 3X is too much, then where's the line? 2.5X? Have third bathrooms but not as frequently as having just two?
For new buildings, yeah. For pre-existing buildings that were built with only two bathrooms, the cost of adding an extra one that wasn't considered at the original design stage could be prohibitive. Most of our buildings are still going to be older buildings.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th June 2019, 08:50 PM   #3009
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 23,485
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
The SKERFS are at it again.
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
Something about that video bothered me. I think it's the bit about replacing "men" or perhaps "trans women" with "serial killers" to show how ridiculous the whole trans thing is.

Of course, nobody would be making this argument if the subject were serial killers.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th June 2019, 10:30 PM   #3010
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 6,208
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You've even lost track of what it is YOU claimed.

No. The only way to conclude that only testosterone levels relative to the average for your sex matters is to conclude that testosterone is the only relevant variable.
Obviously not. Just because testosterone levels relative to the average for your sex matters doesn't mean that testosterone is the only relevant variable.

Quote:
Some of them are. That's a logical requirement if biology affects behavior.
No it isn't. If in culture A high testosterone leads to aggression and in culture B high testosterone leads to sociability then biology affects behavior yet its behavioral effect is not invariant across cultures (aggression in culture A and sociability in culture B).

Quote:
But it leads rather naturally to behavioral differences. Across cultures. For rather obvious reasons. A strong person is more likely to pick a fight with a weak person than a weak person is to pick a fight with a strong person. That observation doesn't depend on culture. Hell, it doesn't even depend on species.
Nope, even in one of our closest relatives, Bonobos, the females are smaller and less strong yet it's the females who engage in physical aggression and not the males. For someone who calls others clueless you sure are clueless. ETA: And this actually provides a nice example of the importance of social organization mediating biological differences to lead to different behaviors, the way female bonobos are able to do this is because they have "cliques" whereas the males don't, so they gang up on a single male together.

Quote:
Of course testosterone affects men differently than women, because the level of testosterone makes a difference to the effect, and the levels in men and women are different. How is that not obvious to you? And again, the effects are cross-cultural. They show up even in early infancy. They show up even when the person is socialized from birth believing they are the opposite gender AND sex (which is different than being trans, where they think their gender doesn't match their sex).
Then how come there are cultures where men are less aggressive than women? It's almost as if the effects of testosterone are modulated by culture, you know, as I've been arguing for a couple of pages now;
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin

Last edited by caveman1917; 12th June 2019 at 11:02 PM.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th June 2019, 10:36 PM   #3011
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 6,208
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
No, it really does.
No, it really doesn't.

Quote:
You're the one trying to simplify the issue to the point of ridiculousness.
No that would be you and Zig.

Quote:
Yes, women with more testosterone than other women will be more aggressive in general than other women. It does not change the fact that men have more testosterones and are more aggressive in general than women. So we've just proven that biology is an important behavioural factor. Thanks.
I'll ask you the same question: Then why are there cultures where women are more aggressive than men? You don't know what the term "prove" means, do you?

Quote:
I don't see how my "logic" would lead to this. Do those low-T men have less T than high-T women, or more? What's the relationship with other hormones, etc.
As I have told you multiple times already, the low-T men have more T than the high-T women. So by your simplistic argument (ie where aggressiveness is a simple linear relation to absolute T levels across the sexes) the low-T men should be more aggressive than the high-T women yet they aren't.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th June 2019, 11:00 PM   #3012
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 6,208
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Rather little, from what I've read about them. It is difficult to imagine a human society with fewer hierarchical, territorial, patriarchal, and (frankly) brutal features. There remains some degree of sex specialization, however, e.g. who does the blow-pipe hunting. Iím guessing they have other gendered roles as well, apart from the obvious (childbirth and nursing).
Division of labor isn't necessarily hierarchical though. If you and I started a cooperative business together and we make all the decisions based on consensus (ie neither of us is the "boss") then we have a non-hierarchical organization even though we each still may have our specialized job within it.

As a general rule that's how decision making works in hunter-gatherer groups. Individuals suggests things to do and the group makes the decisions on what to do based on consensus. The individual who suggested it then becomes the organizer for said task but he or she is not a "leader" in the sense that they have no authority, everyone is free to walk away again and do something else instead. So they do have a division of labor of sorts, in the sense that there is an individual organizer for some task, but it's not hierarchical since said individual doesn't have authority.

And again, that's just a general rule, there is enormous variety among groups in how they do things. A variety which has been mostly lost ever since colonialism homogenized socio-cultural structures along the globe which then in turn leads to people such as Zig drawing all sorts of unsupported conclusions about culturally invariant aspects to human behavior because of being under the impression that studying different parts of the modern world captures the variety in human social structures whereas it really only captures a tiny bit of that variety due to having been forcefully homogenized through colonialism.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th June 2019, 11:05 PM   #3013
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 6,208
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
When we have division of labour such that you farm and I build plows and you trade food for my plow, that makes sense. How does division of labour work with respect to reproduction? You can't trade your children with me and you having children doesn't do me any good.

In the case of bees the analogy works, but as someone else said it doesn't work in mammals because your reproduction isn't my good.
Not going to look it up who said this first so I'll respond to you saying it. But in some mammals it does work, meerkats for example have a single matriarch who is the only one allowed to procreate and who kills the offspring of other females in the group. Indeed, plenty of mammals have such arrangements. ETA: And the alpha female in Bonobo groups does actually sometimes "steal" the offspring of other females.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin

Last edited by caveman1917; 12th June 2019 at 11:26 PM.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th June 2019, 11:10 PM   #3014
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 6,208
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
Something about that video bothered me. I think it's the bit about replacing "men" or perhaps "trans women" with "serial killers" to show how ridiculous the whole trans thing is.

Of course, nobody would be making this argument if the subject were serial killers.
The guy has an entire blog (mostly just copy-paste from his tumblr). Personally I think it's hilarious.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th June 2019, 11:22 PM   #3015
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 6,208
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
"Uncategorized" isn't really a "third category". The "win" is that everyone who wants access to a bathroom can have it.
IIRC it was actually already suggested that trans-women could use the disabled's bathroom, but this was rejected because it didn't validate their identity as women.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th June 2019, 11:31 PM   #3016
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,323
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Again, I also I mentioned lions and elephant seals. Are those not mammals? And I only brought it up because someone wanted to talk about non-human animals. I thought it was pretty clear I wasn't referring to human social arrangements, but some animal ones.
Yes, I'm saying that you were wrong about Lions and Elephant seals. Their mating system isn't akin to division of labour. It's simply competition for scarce resources.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th June 2019, 11:36 PM   #3017
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,323
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Not going to look it up who said this first so I'll respond to you saying it. But in some mammals it does work, meerkats for example have a single matriarch who is the only one allowed to procreate and who kills the offspring of other females in the group. Indeed, plenty of mammals have such arrangements. ETA: And the alpha female in Bonobo groups does actually sometimes "steal" the offspring of other females.
I'm not sure about the case of either meerkats or bonobos, but in wolves I think the analogy is valid. But in general in mammals some individuals monopolising reproduction aren't simply making the group more efficient by division of labour: they are the winners in a competition for mates.

In some cases (like wolves) there may be elements of both.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th June 2019, 11:43 PM   #3018
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 6,208
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
I'm not sure about the case of either meerkats or bonobos, but in wolves I think the analogy is valid. But in general in mammals some individuals monopolising reproduction aren't simply making the group more efficient by division of labour: they are the winners in a competition for mates.
It is the case for meerkats where the alpha female tends to kill the offspring of the other females, even Wikipedia notes this. The theory is that they do this so there's only a single litter at a time to take care for, so it is in some sense a way to maintain efficieny. In Bonobos the offspring isn't killed but the alpha female sometimes steals offspring from the other females. Indeed, the most well-known Bonobo Kanzi (known for a remarkable ability to learn language) was stolen by the alpha female from his actual mother.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th June 2019, 11:50 PM   #3019
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,323
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
It is the case for meerkats where the alpha female tends to kill the offspring of the other females, even Wikipedia notes this. The theory is that they do this so there's only a single litter at a time to take care for, so it is in some sense a way to maintain efficieny. In Bonobos the offspring isn't killed but the alpha female sometimes steals offspring from the other females. Indeed, the most well-known Bonobo Kanzi (known for a remarkable ability to learn language) was stolen by the alpha female from his actual mother.
But I'm not seeing how that's analogous to division of labour. If I understood the analogy some meerkats are saying "You go do the reproduction while I will thus be freed of the need to reproduce and can thus collect more food. I'll share this food with you (and your offspring) and thus we'll end up with more total offspring and more food than if we both had to do both". But that's not the deal that's being struck and the other females don't care that the first one can have more offspring this way (nor does the reproductive female get anything in return from the other females). In ants, however, this is the deal that's struck. The queen does all the reproducing and the workers feed her.

I'm not saying that you're wrong that reproduction is monopolised by a few individuals, I'm saying it's not analogous to division of labour.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th June 2019, 12:13 AM   #3020
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 6,208
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
But I'm not seeing how that's analogous to division of labour. If I understood the analogy some meerkats are saying "You go do the reproduction while I will thus be freed of the need to reproduce and can thus collect more food. I'll share this food with you (and your offspring) and thus we'll end up with more total offspring and more food than if we both had to do both". But that's not the deal that's being struck and the other females don't care that the first one can have more offspring this way (nor does the reproductive female get anything in return from the other females). In ants, however, this is the deal that's struck. The queen does all the reproducing and the workers feed her.

I'm not saying that you're wrong that reproduction is monopolised by a few individuals, I'm saying it's not analogous to division of labour.
Ah yes, I misunderstood what you were saying then. I agree that it doesn't amount to a division of labour.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th June 2019, 02:09 AM   #3021
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,160
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
And sometimes, we've separated them into more than just the common two. And some very small places only have a single restroom with no gender separation, intended for single-person occupancy.

Incidentally, many places in the US already have "family" restrooms which are non-gender-specific, intended primarily for parents and very young children. So yes, there are instances where we, in contemporary society, provide three separate bathroom facilities. Don't see how the cost isn't justified.
That things were different before isn't a justification for a change now. And the thing is, it's more difficult to change those things in the current setup than it was in certain times in the past.

Quote:
Funny, we had no problem spending extra on more-than-two-types bathrooms when it was needed to keep those darkies separated from good white folks.
See above. The fact that it could be done then, for the reasons they had, doesn't mean that it would be easy now for other reasons. It just doesn't follow.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th June 2019, 02:12 AM   #3022
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,160
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
That's the nature of compromise. If the options are between everyone being less than completely satisfied, nobody being satisfied, and some being miserable I'll choose the first option.
Zig didn't say "completely".

Quote:
Less miserable than they'd be if they had no bathroom access at all
There is no scenario in which anyone would have no access. That's not even on the table.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th June 2019, 02:55 AM   #3023
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 49,067
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Zig didn't say "completely".



There is no scenario in which anyone would have no access. That's not even on the table.
I don't know why this is so difficult to grasp: having an uncategorized bathroom is a better option for transwomen than making them use the men's room. Is that unclear? And again, yes, I know they'd prefer to use the women's room. That's why it's a compromise.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th June 2019, 03:05 AM   #3024
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,323
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I don't know why this is so difficult to grasp: having an uncategorized bathroom is a better option for transwomen than making them use the men's room. Is that unclear? And again, yes, I know they'd prefer to use the women's room. That's why it's a compromise.
I think that's pretty clear and I also think in general it's going to be true. Transwomen will probably be happier to have a unisex bathroom to go to than being required to use the men's room, even if there is also a women's room that they aren't allowed to use.

I do think that the fact that it requires a whole new room beyond what we already have is a meaningful issue, but that's a matter of how important this is to us as a society, and whether or not transwomen in general would be willing to accept your compromise solution as good enough.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th June 2019, 03:06 AM   #3025
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 43,110
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
IIRC it was actually already suggested that trans-women could use the disabled's bathroom, but this was rejected because it didn't validate their identity as women.

Everyone who wants a bathroom can currently have a bathroom. As Caveman says it's about validation.

Trans-identifying men want to be treated as women in every conceivable way (right down to being called for cervical smears and mammograms), which means access to all women's single-sex spaces without challenge. This is not about any danger or even embarrassment they face in men's single-sex spaces, or they'd be content with the offer of a third space. They reject any such offer indignantly, because it doesn't validate them as being "real women".

We kind of got along for decades because there was a gatekeeping process and women kind of imagined that the creeps and the perverts who wanted access to women's spaces for creepy and perverted reasons were being screened out by that. So even if we felt a bit uncomfortable about it we didn't make a fuss when some bloke wearing a bad wig and a mother-of-the-bride outfit came into the ladies.

Now a few things have changed. First, we discover that we were labouring under a misapprehension. The bloke in the mother-of-the-bride outfit probably still has all his tackle and no intention of getting rid of it. He also quite possibly doesn't have a gender recognition certificate and so hasn't been through any gatekeeping process. This is a concern.

Second, and this is the crux of the matter, the reason the spotlight has been turned on this now is that the militant trans activists have almost succeeded in getting the politicians to legislate to remove the gatekeeping process. Just as women are waking up to what's going on, and saying wait a minute we're not cool with this, they're being told that whatever safeguards there were are to be removed. The excuse is, well people are self-identifying anyway, so what?

Third, obviously the official removal of the gatekeeping and it becoming public knowledge that any man simply has to say "I identify as a woman" and he's untouchable in a female-only space is going to become known to creeps and predators of all descriptions. We're already hearing some reports of creepy men in the ladies saying "I identify as a woman" when challenged.

Fourth, the actual dempgraphic of trans-identifying men is changing. The "old school" transsexuals who just wanted to fit in as unobtrusively as they can are still there, but they have been joined by a band of aggressively male trans activists who seem to take delight in making women uncomfortable and branding anyone who even looks sideways at their five o'clock shadow as a terf, a transphobe and a bigot. This is not OK.

The problem with all suggestions about third spaces is that this solution gives women their single-sex space back. To the trans lobby this is anathema. Women must not be permitted to have any single-sex spaces that exclude males, because "trans women are women" and must not on any account be excluded because validation.

And that's where we are. And if you think that's not autogynaephilia, I beg to differ.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th June 2019, 04:05 AM   #3026
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,160
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Read again. The point of that passage is to contrast "need" and "desire", not to suggest they are the same thing and can fulfilled the same way.
Well, what are you suggesting, then? That we ignore their desire to fulfil their need? It's already fulfilled.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th June 2019, 04:07 AM   #3027
Francesca R
Girl
 
Francesca R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London EC1
Posts: 18,117
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
The problem with all suggestions about third spaces is that this solution gives women their single-sex space back. To the trans lobby this is anathema.
Well, quite.
Originally Posted by Francesca R View Post
Three bathrooms is complete defeat for transwomen who want to use a female only bathroom so that's out.

It is a victory for women who want to preserve their segregated bathrooms.

So it isn't a compromise. And anyway compromise is not possible with mutually exclusive competing objectives, the Venn diagram does not have an intersection.
Originally Posted by Francesca R View Post
As I already said it isn't a compromise. It is one side prevailing and the other side being denied. Oh it's a superior resolution in my view absolutely. But I wouldn't pretend being on the winning side was compromising that's fake news.
Francesca R is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th June 2019, 04:10 AM   #3028
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,160
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
No, it really doesn't.
Dude, testosterone alters behaviour and perspective. Men and women have, on average, different levels of it and other hormones. That means that it will affect behaviour differently for both sexes. You can't deny this.

Quote:
No that would be you and Zig.
Now you're just knee-jerk nay-saying. How can we be over-simplifying an issue when our entire point is that it's more complex than you're pretending?

Quote:
Then why are there cultures where women are more aggressive than men?
I know of no such culture.

Quote:
As I have told you multiple times already, the low-T men have more T than the high-T women. So by your simplistic argument (ie where aggressiveness is a simple linear relation to absolute T levels across the sexes)
For the umpteenth time that IS NOT MY ARGUMENT. At least make a modicrum of effort to understand what other people are saying before pretending that you know what they're talking about.

NOBODY said it was a simple linear progression. That is YOUR simplistic interpretation. It is entirely possible for testosterone to be heavily involved in aggression, to cause men in general to be more aggressive than women AND some women to be more aggressive than some men even if those men have a lower testosterone level.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th June 2019, 04:12 AM   #3029
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,160
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I don't know why this is so difficult to grasp: having an uncategorized bathroom is a better option for transwomen than making them use the men's room. Is that unclear?
It's not unclear. There's just no reason to believe that it's true.

Why do you think it is?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th June 2019, 04:41 AM   #3030
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 49,067
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
It's not unclear. There's just no reason to believe that it's true.

Why do you think it is?
Why do you think it isn't? Do you think forcing transwomen to use the men's room is a better option, for than? Do you think that given a choice between no bathroom, an uncategorized bathroom, or the men's room transwomen wouldn't pick the uncategorized bathroom?

"Why I think it is" is because it seems the best of those three options to me. I can't break it down further than that, it seems self evident to me. Asking why is Bob-level four-year-old questioning.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th June 2019, 04:47 AM   #3031
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,006
TragicMonkey's solution seems a great compromise to me, but...…


I have only skimmed the last few pages, so I apologize if I'm repeating things others have already said. Many have noted that the trans activists wouldn't accept the compromise because it doesn't validate their identity as their chosen gender. This isn't just a theory in the US at least. It's well worn ground. When this subject comes up in American high schools, the transgirl who wants to use female facilities is usually offered private facilities instead. I suspect that in quite a few cases, she says that is fine and all is well. Those are the cases we don't hear about.


However, that isn't good enough for some. Those are the cases where lawsuits are filed and headlines are made. Either the school district is sued by the transgender for discrimination, or they are sued for violation of privacy if the school district allows access to the female facilities for the transgirl.


If the issue were simply access to bathrooms or locker rooms, TM's suggestion has been tried, and in many cases was rejected by the transgender activist side.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th June 2019, 04:54 AM   #3032
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,160
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Why do you think it isn't?
Where did I say that? Just because I'm asking you to support your claim doesn't mean I've already concluded the opposite, you know.

Quote:
Do you think forcing transwomen to use the men's room is a better option, for than? Do you think that given a choice between no bathroom, an uncategorized bathroom, or the men's room transwomen wouldn't pick the uncategorized bathroom?

"Why I think it is" is because it seems the best of those three options to me. I can't break it down further than that, it seems self evident to me. Asking why is Bob-level four-year-old questioning.
In other words, you feel that it's a better solution, but you can't really explain why. Fair enough, but I wouldn't support such a solution based on a feeling. Perhaps luchog can tell us what they think about it.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th June 2019, 05:17 AM   #3033
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 49,067
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Where did I say that? Just because I'm asking you to support your claim doesn't mean I've already concluded the opposite, you know.



In other words, you feel that it's a better solution, but you can't really explain why. Fair enough, but I wouldn't support such a solution based on a feeling. Perhaps luchog can tell us what they think about it.
I don't know how to explain why a good thing is better than a bad thing without going back to Aristotle. I can't believe you are sincerely asking that so I'm forced to conclude you're simply trolling. If not then perhaps you can define what "good" is without resorting to feelings. Two and a half millennia of philosophy hasn't managed it but I'm certain you can, in order to justify quibbling about public toilets on the internet.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th June 2019, 05:37 AM   #3034
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,934
I think the issue is we're talking different versions of the concept of "compromise." Neither of them are the "right" way either in linguistic technicality or practical application.

We have X number of groups with incompatible goals and our "job" as a society is to at least try to reconcile those goals and, if failing that, at least reduce the friction as much as reasonably and practically possible.

1. TragicMonkey's creation of a third category is a good solution for directing the conflict away from people who don't care about it or who don't see it as a conflict.

2. Belz is attempting to create a solution while retaining all the participants in the debate.

And again neither of these solutions is inherently bad or wrong or invalid, I think we're just coming at it from different directions.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th June 2019, 05:44 AM   #3035
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,160
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I don't know how to explain why a good thing is better than a bad thing without going back to Aristotle. I can't believe you are sincerely asking that so I'm forced to conclude you're simply trolling.
For ****'s sake I'm not asking you to explain why good is better than bad. I'm asking you why you think it's good.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th June 2019, 05:46 AM   #3036
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,323
I think the issue is this:

TM: This compromise is better than the current situation.

I think that's true except potentially if the expense of creating a third space makes in unfeasible, but it's not clear to me if it does.

Others: Transpeople won't be happy with that compromise, so it's not a solution to the problem.

Again this isn't clear either. While the compromise is clearly better than the status quo, that doesn't mean that it's good enough to accept if that implies giving up the goal of simply having transpeople use the toilet of their choice.

So I think both sides may be right and are perhaps talking past each other.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th June 2019, 05:47 AM   #3037
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,205
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
Incidentally, many places in the US already have "family" restrooms which are non-gender-specific, intended primarily for parents and very young children. So yes, there are instances where we, in contemporary society, provide three separate bathroom facilities. Don't see how the cost isn't justified.
It often is, in new construction. Retrofitting existing buildings? Not so much.

Quote:
Funny, we had no problem spending extra on more-than-two-types bathrooms when it was needed to keep those darkies separated from good white folks.
Who is "we"? Plenty of people had a problem with it even at the time, and I wasn't even around then.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th June 2019, 06:01 AM   #3038
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 49,067
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
For ****'s sake I'm not asking you to explain why good is better than bad. I'm asking you why you think it's good.
Because the alternatives are less desirable and/or less effective. The possibilities I see here are:

1. No bathroom access for transwomen at all
2. Access to the men's room
3. Access to an uncategorized bathroom
4. Access to the women's room

I believe transwomen would prefer 4 to the others and rank 1 and 2 as less preferable to 3. The compromise is settling for 3 because while it's not as good as 4 it's still way better than 1 or 2. I can't "prove" that, I guess the only means to do so would be a huge survey? Or implement each option and then do polls afterward to ask how they felt. Which seems impractical. I really don't see why this is so questionable it even needs proving. I don't have immediate proof that people will mostly prefer eating chocolate over cat turds either, but feel free to conduct an elaborate survey or taste test.

As for the other "side" this compromise preserves the sacred spaces of the "real women" who seem to be hysterical with dread that somebody else might spy on them making ploppies. It gives them what they say they want while not actually exterminating transwomen out of existence, which they haven't openly admitted to wishing for so it needn't be accommodated.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th June 2019, 06:04 AM   #3039
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,160
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Because the alternatives are less desirable and/or less effective.
That's not very helpful. Obviously you think the solution is better because the alternatives are worse.

Incidently could you retract your accusation of trolling?

Quote:
1. No bathroom access for transwomen at all
Which is not an option.

Quote:
2. Access to the men's room
3. Access to an uncategorized bathroom
4. Access to the women's room
Yes, those are our basic options.

Quote:
I believe transwomen would prefer 4 to the others and rank 1 and 2 as less preferable to 3.
And here's the crux of the problem: what's your basis for that? You think they'd prefer option 3 to option 2 if they can't get 4, but I'm not sure that's true.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th June 2019, 06:15 AM   #3040
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,006
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Because the alternatives are less desirable and/or less effective. The possibilities I see here are:

1. No bathroom access for transwomen at all
2. Access to the men's room
3. Access to an uncategorized bathroom
4. Access to the women's room

I believe transwomen would prefer 4 to the others and rank 1 and 2 as less preferable to 3. The compromise is settling for 3 because while it's not as good as 4 it's still way better than 1 or 2. I can't "prove" that, I guess the only means to do so would be a huge survey? Or implement each option and then do polls afterward to ask how they felt. Which seems impractical. I really don't see why this is so questionable it even needs proving. I don't have immediate proof that people will mostly prefer eating chocolate over cat turds either, but feel free to conduct an elaborate survey or taste test.

As for the other "side" this compromise preserves the sacred spaces of the "real women" who seem to be hysterical with dread that somebody else might spy on them making ploppies. It gives them what they say they want while not actually exterminating transwomen out of existence, which they haven't openly admitted to wishing for so it needn't be accommodated.
Again, in at least some places where option 3 has been made available, it has been explicitly rejected by trans activists.

I think it's a fine idea myself, but let's keep expectations reasonable. Not everyone wants compromise.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:11 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.