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.
Reply
Old 2nd August 2019, 10:56 PM   #1001
Francesca R
Girl
 
Francesca R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London EC1
Posts: 18,559
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Do you seriously think that identifying as a [ trans ] woman is as simple as saying "I identify as a woman" with no other actions taken?
In some cases it is, in others it is not. There is not one law for every situation in the world. This is a red herring on your part.

Do you think think men should simply be able to claim to be female to get into a formerly female-only shower room?

Kindly answer the question.

Last edited by Francesca R; 2nd August 2019 at 10:57 PM.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2019, 02:43 AM   #1002
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 6,831
Originally Posted by deadrose View Post
Also the places that have the gatekeeping steps before surgery, like living two years as a woman? That *includes* using women's bathrooms, so if everyone played it your way, surgery would be unobtainable. How's that going to work, that little catch-22?
Can you give an example of a place that has such gatekeeping steps before surgery? Otherwise this catch-22 seems merely hypothetical.
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2019, 03:09 AM   #1003
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 43,958
The "living as a woman" for two years before surgery has been standard in Britain up till now I think. However, according to older transsexuals I've heard speaking about it, it did not involve using women's facilities. They were firmly counselled, no going in the Ladies until after surgery, and even when you do, if you see someone who seems to be uncomfortable with your presence, just leave as quickly as you possibly can.

The extension of this to allow pre-operative transwomen into women's facilities as part of their "living as a woman" is part of this mission creep by stealth which has happened over the past 10 or 20 years with women not being told about it, let alone consulted. And now we wake up to discover that intact men have been using our facilities and we're not allowed to challenge this, and in fact they don't even have to bother "performing femininity" any more either.

Time for a radical roll-back on this, not enshrining it in law. Some other solution to the mental health problems of transwomen needs to be found that does not involve abolishing all single-sex spaces in the country.
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2019, 03:14 AM   #1004
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 6,831
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
The "living as a woman" for two years before surgery has been standard in Britain up till now I think. However, according to older transsexuals I've heard speaking about it, it did not involve using women's facilities. They were firmly counselled, no going in the Ladies until after surgery, and even when you do, if you see someone who seems to be uncomfortable with your presence, just leave as quickly as you possibly can.

The extension of this to allow pre-operative transwomen into women's facilities as part of their "living as a woman" is part of this mission creep by stealth which has happened over the past 10 or 20 years with women not being told about it, let alone consulted. And now we wake up to discover that intact men have been using our facilities and we're not allowed to challenge this, and in fact they don't even have to bother "performing femininity" any more either.

Time for a radical roll-back on this, not enshrining it in law. Some other solution to the mental health problems of transwomen needs to be found that does not involve abolishing all single-sex spaces in the country.
Maybe I'm understanding this wrong, but I thought there is no law restricting surgery. The "living as a woman" for 2 years is a requirement for getting a GRC which makes you legally a woman (giving you the right to access female-only facilities) but there's nothing in the law restricting anyone from getting surgery, surgery is determined by your doctor/psychiatrist/... and not by the law. Basically like this:

Surgery + 2 years living as a woman -> GRC -> legally allowed into female-only spaces.
No surgery + 2 years living as a woman -> GRC -> legally allowed into female-only spaces.

Surgery isn't determined by law, neither are there legal requirements before you can get surgery, nor is having had surgery a legal requirement to get a GRC.
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2019, 03:28 AM   #1005
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 43,958
I don't think it was or is a law, as far as I know it was a stipulation put in place by the NHS and probably also adhered to by private providers back in the day when these people had some care for safeguarding women.
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2019, 05:58 AM   #1006
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,151
Originally Posted by Strawberry View Post
Nobody cares about bathrooms, we're talking about changing rooms, communal showers, or areas where people undress. Nobody gives two hoots who is peeing in the cubicle next to them.
Rolfe seemed to care. She was upset that a transwoman had 5 o'clock shadow in a selfie in a women's restroom.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2019, 06:05 AM   #1007
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,151
Originally Posted by deadrose View Post
So what is your solution? Are you going to have someone at the door doing genital checks? Are you just going to challenge butch women or deep-voiced women (which has happened)? And what about when this "beardy bloke" walks in? http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ictureid=12220

By your standards, he belongs in there, not in the men's room.

Also the places that have the gatekeeping steps before surgery, like living two years as a woman? That *includes* using women's bathrooms, so if everyone played it your way, surgery would be unobtainable. How's that going to work, that little catch-22?
That seems to be the goal, door-guards checking genitals at every women's bathroom and changing room.

They claim they don't want women to undress in front of men, but they want this person undressing in the Men's changing room:


wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2019, 07:06 AM   #1008
Francesca R
Girl
 
Francesca R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London EC1
Posts: 18,559
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
They claim [ . . . ]
What do you claim?

What is your answer to the highly on topic question that you have been asked several times in this thread in which you are participating?

It is not hard to answer. Yes or no?

Many thanks, again.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2019, 07:11 AM   #1009
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 39,144
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
That seems to be the goal, door-guards checking genitals at every women's bathroom and changing room.



They claim they don't want women to undress in front of men, but they want this person undressing in the Men's changing room:





http://www.internationalskeptics.com...586471e49c.jpg
Already addressed. You're wrong.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2019, 07:14 AM   #1010
Strawberry
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,122
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
That seems to be the goal, door-guards checking genitals at every women's bathroom and changing room.

They claim they don't want women to undress in front of men, but they want this person undressing in the Men's changing room:


http://www.internationalskeptics.com...586471e49c.jpg
If trans rights simply involved allowing people like Blair White to change in the women's room there wouldn't be any controversy. It doesn't though, as you well know. It involves allowing any man access to female only spaces if he self-declares as a woman. What's your opinion on that?
Strawberry is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2019, 08:02 AM   #1011
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 43,958
There will always be disputed edge cases no matter what criteria are used. The point about using concrete, immutable physical characteristics is that disputes become reasonably soluble and don't sink into the mire of unfalsifiable claims about feelings.

I certainly didn't propose genitalia checks to enter single-sex spaces. I said, if you have a functional SRY gene and bioavailable androgens, you know who you are, and stay the hell out of women's single-sex spaces.

That makes it self-policing, up until the point where someone is challenged. If Blaire White really does look so undeniably female that Blaire White is not going to be challenged in the Ladies loo (as seems very likely to be the case), then there will be no challenge and no problem. On the other hand Blaire White knows perfectly well that Blaire White is very much liable to be challenged in a locker room, and therefore stays the hell out. (Blaire White's behaviour seems to be governed by choosing what is least likely to make someone - especially women - uncomfortable. As such, Blaire White is not likely to be at the centre of controversy. Jonathan Yaniv, on the other hand, positively revels in making women feel uncomfortable and positively seeks out such situations. I hope we can agree that it's the Jonathan Yanivs of this world we need to be aware of when devising legislation or regulations.)

In this situation, if someone with a functional SRY gene and bioavailable androgens raises no concerns in a female single-sex space, either as regards masculine appearance or problematic behaviour, there is no problem. If on the other hand such a person does give rise to concern, then the ajudication is clear. Functional SRY gene and bioavailable androgens (longhand for "male body"), you are in the wrong, clear out or we call the cops.
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2019, 08:34 AM   #1012
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,151
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
In this situation, if someone with a functional SRY gene and bioavailable androgens raises no concerns in a female single-sex space, either as regards masculine appearance or problematic behaviour, there is no problem. If on the other hand such a person does give rise to concern, then the ajudication is clear. Functional SRY gene and bioavailable androgens (longhand for "male body"), you are in the wrong, clear out or we call the cops.
I highlited the only thing you should actually be worried about, which is already covered under current law.

I did mention enjoying watching you guys contradict each other, right? It's even funnier watching you scramble to find edge cases to prove your point while handwaving away edge cases which show your bias.

Also, just so we're clear, no genital check, just a check for which genes are functional? Yeah, that sounds doable.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2019, 08:36 AM   #1013
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,151
Originally Posted by Strawberry View Post
If trans rights simply involved allowing people like Blair White to change in the women's room there wouldn't be any controversy. It doesn't though, as you well know. It involves allowing any man access to female only spaces if he self-declares as a woman. What's your opinion on that?
My opinion is that self-declaration is not the only action that trans people are undertaking. You are on record as saying that Blair White is a man and should use the men's facilities, as you have stated that there is no possible way she could be anything but a man given her genitals at birth.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2019, 08:37 AM   #1014
Strawberry
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,122
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
I highlited the only thing you should actually be worried about, which is already covered under current law.

I did mention enjoying watching you guys contradict each other, right? It's even funnier watching you scramble to find edge cases to prove your point while handwaving away edge cases which show your bias.

Also, just so we're clear, no genital check, just a check for which genes are functional? Yeah, that sounds doable.
Then what do you propose?
Strawberry is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2019, 08:41 AM   #1015
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,151
Originally Posted by Francesca R View Post
What do you claim?

What is your answer to the highly on topic question that you have been asked several times in this thread in which you are participating?

It is not hard to answer. Yes or no?

Many thanks, again.
I understand your frustration. I'm not getting answers when I ask you guys if you actually believe that the situation is as you present it. Well, I take that back, Meadmaker says that identifying as female is as simple as saying one morning that I'm female, while others have claimed 2 year processes, with hormones and living as a female during those times. Even the numpties that think living as a female full time, taking hormones, and all have tried to dishonestly simplify it to "I decided right before I walked into this women's changing area that I'm a woman, so it's all good now," rather like you have. Which is why I'd like to know if you actually believe your rhetoric even after your side has posted evidence of how false it is?
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2019, 08:52 AM   #1016
Francesca R
Girl
 
Francesca R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London EC1
Posts: 18,559
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
I understand your frustration. I'm not getting answers when I ask you guys if you actually believe that the situation is as you present it.
Yes you are. You have had answers from me and others, and evidence presented to you in the last 24 hours in this thread. You are a denier of evidence, and this has been established by you continuing to "demand" it after it has been given. It is also a red herring and in reality an obfuscation because you are not willing to provide an answer to a question that makes you squirm a bit.

Others can draw their own conclusions about how this undermines what you write.

I shall assume there is no way you can ever justify a yes answer to the question posed. No idea why you don't just answer no. Probably because it grates too much to agree with others you have set your head against. Whatever.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2019, 09:16 AM   #1017
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 39,144
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
I understand your frustration. I'm not getting answers when I ask you guys if you actually believe that the situation is as you present it.
This is, and has been all along, a red herring.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2019, 09:27 AM   #1018
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,151
So we're clear, asking if you believe your question is relevant is a red herring? I don't think you guys understanding what a red herring is.

Not answering a hypothetical that has no bearing on the situation we are discussing really shouldn't tell you anything.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2019, 09:29 AM   #1019
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,151
Originally Posted by Francesca R View Post
I shall assume there is no way you can ever justify a yes answer to the question posed. No idea why you don't just answer no. Probably because it grates too much to agree with others you have set your head against. Whatever.
I can't justify answering yes or no to such a question, as it's begging the question that such a situation exists.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2019, 09:45 AM   #1020
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 39,144
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
So we're clear, asking if you believe your question is relevant is a red herring? I don't think you guys understanding what a red herring is.

Not answering a hypothetical that has no bearing on the situation we are discussing really shouldn't tell you anything.
Already addressed.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2019, 10:22 AM   #1021
Francesca R
Girl
 
Francesca R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London EC1
Posts: 18,559
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
I can't justify answering yes or no to such a question as it's begging the question that such a situation exists.
Rubbish.

I can justify no. You have been told and shown that the situation exists. Your responses can be recognised for the ludicrous squirming that they are.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2019, 10:43 AM   #1022
deadrose
Illuminator
 
deadrose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: the wet side of the mountains
Posts: 3,221
Fine, for those who can't or won't extrapolate, are you comfortable with that "beardy bloke" I pictured changing next to you in the changing room? Because by your standards, he will always be a woman, and there's no changing that.
deadrose is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2019, 10:47 AM   #1023
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 43,958
Originally Posted by deadrose View Post
Fine, for those who can't or won't extrapolate, are you comfortable with that "beardy bloke" I pictured changing next to you in the changing room? Because by your standards, he will always be a woman, and there's no changing that.

Maybe you missed this? (Extra brownie point for not posting a picture of Buck Angel I suppose.)

Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
There will always be disputed edge cases no matter what criteria are used. The point about using concrete, immutable physical characteristics is that disputes become reasonably soluble and don't sink into the mire of unfalsifiable claims about feelings.

I certainly didn't propose genitalia checks to enter single-sex spaces. I said, if you have a functional SRY gene and bioavailable androgens, you know who you are, and stay the hell out of women's single-sex spaces.

That makes it self-policing, up until the point where someone is challenged. If Blaire White really does look so undeniably female that Blaire White is not going to be challenged in the Ladies loo (as seems very likely to be the case), then there will be no challenge and no problem. On the other hand Blaire White knows perfectly well that Blaire White is very much liable to be challenged in a locker room, and therefore stays the hell out. (Blaire White's behaviour seems to be governed by choosing what is least likely to make someone - especially women - uncomfortable. As such, Blaire White is not likely to be at the centre of controversy. Jonathan Yaniv, on the other hand, positively revels in making women feel uncomfortable and positively seeks out such situations. I hope we can agree that it's the Jonathan Yanivs of this world we need to be aware of when devising legislation or regulations.)

In this situation, if someone with a functional SRY gene and bioavailable androgens raises no concerns in a female single-sex space, either as regards masculine appearance or problematic behaviour, there is no problem. If on the other hand such a person does give rise to concern, then the ajudication is clear. Functional SRY gene and bioavailable androgens (longhand for "male body"), you are in the wrong, clear out or we call the cops.
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2019, 11:10 AM   #1024
deadrose
Illuminator
 
deadrose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: the wet side of the mountains
Posts: 3,221
And you immediately direct it back to male-bodied people (or formerly male-bodied). Do you think all your hypothetical women are going to welcome Mr. Adams to the women's changing room on the grounds that he assumedly has 2 X chromosomes?

By your standards, my 20-something year old self would have been unwelcome in women's changing rooms, since I was routinely assumed to be a teenaged boy. As a matter of fact, I simply gave up going to swimming pools and other such public places because of it. Already the harassment of women who don't read as sufficiently feminine is a growing problem.

Please look at the bigger picture than the tiny area of focus you've fixated on. This is (again) causing women to avoid identifying as feminist so they won't be associated with this sort of thing.
deadrose is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2019, 11:18 AM   #1025
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 43,958
I assumed you could extrapolate from what I wrote to the opposite situation.
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2019, 11:48 AM   #1026
deadrose
Illuminator
 
deadrose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: the wet side of the mountains
Posts: 3,221
I could, but I wanted an answer whether you actually felt the same for the opposite situation, since quite a lot of people don't think of the two situations as identical. So instead of me making assumptions about what you think, why not tell us your actual opinion?
deadrose is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2019, 01:33 PM   #1027
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,151
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Already addressed.
What a wonderful way of dodging! I think I'll try this instead of wasting any more energy on the stupid questions people think make a point!
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2019, 02:10 PM   #1028
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 6,831
Originally Posted by Francesca R View Post
Your responses can be recognised for the ludicrous squirming that they are.
It's fun to watch though. I wonder how many pages of avoiding to answer a simple question we're on by 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
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2019, 02:34 PM   #1029
Francesca R
Girl
 
Francesca R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London EC1
Posts: 18,559
Refusing to answer a question "because it is stupid" or "hypothetical" is a fully transparent evasion. It's not a hypothetical question, it is central to the topic, and a couple of members simply can't bring themselves to admit that the answer to this topic relevant question is "no". It burns them too much. But of course if they answer yes the misogynist folly of that is immediately obvious.

Even if it was hypothetical one could still answer it. But we have been given evidence that it is not. They are in denial and making it more obvious with each post
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2019, 02:48 PM   #1030
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 43,958
Originally Posted by deadrose View Post
Do you think all your hypothetical women are going to welcome Mr. Adams to the women's changing room on the grounds that he assumedly has 2 X chromosomes? [...]

I was routinely assumed to be a teenaged boy. As a matter of fact, I simply gave up going to swimming pools and other such public places because of it.

Which changing room would you have preferred to use at that time? Which changing room do you think "Mr" Adams would prefer to use?
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2019, 03:07 PM   #1031
Fengirl
Graduate Poster
 
Fengirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Cambridgeshire, UK
Posts: 1,278
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
I highlited the only thing you should actually be worried about, which is already covered under current law.

I did mention enjoying watching you guys contradict each other, right? It's even funnier watching you scramble to find edge cases to prove your point while handwaving away edge cases which show your bias.
Then why shouldn’t Blaire White be able to use the men’s room? You’re contradicting yourself here. If you are truly satisfied that there are already adequate laws and regulations in place to protect victims of “problematic behaviour” in locker rooms, then why the hell do we have an issue of transwomen wanting out of the male locker room in the first place? If you are right, they can just be told to appeal to "current law" and get the offending behaviour stopped. That’s essentially what you’ve just told Rolfe to do. According to you, current law is adequate to deal with any instances of sexually-obnoxious, threatening or predatory behaviour in locker rooms.

Nobody needs to change locker rooms then, do they?
At least, not from a personal safety standpoint. That’s the logical conclusion to what you’ve just asserted. The law that you’ve just told Rolfe is adequate to protect her from a predatory man in the women’s locker room will also protect Blaire White from transphobes in the men’s locker room. Problem solved.

Now you have solved all the personal safety concerns simply by appealing to “current law” (well done, you), we are just left with the issue of whether we should still respect a trans-person’s feelings that they are not in the body and the locker room they want to be in; they feel real distress at being labelled the “wrong” gender and at being forced to use the “wrong” gender’s facilities. I have heaps of sympathy for that. Nobody should feel that sort of psychological distress. Surely, we should be doing everything we reasonably can to reduce that?

But… unfortunately it’s already been demonstrated in this thread that feelings about things are irrelevant. Women’s feelings their fears and anxieties about who gets to share their locker room and see them undressed - are irrelevant. Their psychological distress at being mandated to share their private space with any man who self- identifies as a woman is overblown, exaggerated and irrelevant. Their concerns are simply manifestations of bigotry and transphobia that can be handwaved away.

My concern is that this kind of attitude (which is so derogatory and insulting towards women’s feelings) can only serve to embolden those who would show similar disregard toward the feelings of transgender people. You don't get to disregard mine whilst simultaneously demanding that I bend myself out of shape to respect yours. Now THAT'S a contradiction.
__________________
"'Tis with our judgments as our watches, none
Go just alike, yet each believes his own."

Alexander Pope: An Essay on Criticism lines 9-10
Fengirl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2019, 03:14 PM   #1032
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 43,958
Bravo. (Or I probably should say, Brava.)
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2019, 04:02 PM   #1033
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,151
Originally Posted by Fengirl View Post
Then why shouldn’t Blaire White be able to use the men’s room? You’re contradicting yourself here. If you are truly satisfied that there are already adequate laws and regulations in place to protect victims of “problematic behaviour” in locker rooms, then why the hell do we have an issue of transwomen wanting out of the male locker room in the first place? If you are right, they can just be told to appeal to "current law" and get the offending behaviour stopped. That’s essentially what you’ve just told Rolfe to do. According to you, current law is adequate to deal with any instances of sexually-obnoxious, threatening or predatory behaviour in locker rooms.
What utter nonsense! Who said Blaire White didn't want to use the men's room? The problem, as claimed here anyway, was women being forced to undress in front of men. The solution your side proposed here was that Blaire White be forced to undress in front of men.

Originally Posted by Fengirl View Post

Nobody needs to change locker rooms then, do they?
At least, not from a personal safety standpoint. That’s the logical conclusion to what you’ve just asserted. The law that you’ve just told Rolfe is adequate to protect her from a predatory man in the women’s locker room will also protect Blaire White from transphobes in the men’s locker room. Problem solved.
And the nonsense continues. How you get nobody needs to change in locker rooms from, well anything posted in this thread by anyone at all is a mystery. And, since I didn't actually tell Rolfe about any laws (she's the one bringing up laws about living as female fulltime while not being allowed to use female facilities while simultaneously ranting about men declaring themselves women on a whim to get into the ladies room), but pointed out that the concern should be problematic behavior. If you don't think we should worry about problematic behavior, but only whether there are dangly bits, I don't think you are actually concerned with protecting women rather than demonizing trans people.

Originally Posted by Fengirl View Post
Now you have solved all the personal safety concerns simply by appealing to “current law” (well done, you), we are just left with the issue of whether we should still respect a trans-person’s feelings that they are not in the body and the locker room they want to be in; they feel real distress at being labelled the “wrong” gender and at being forced to use the “wrong” gender’s facilities. I have heaps of sympathy for that. Nobody should feel that sort of psychological distress. Surely, we should be doing everything we reasonably can to reduce that?

But… unfortunately it’s already been demonstrated in this thread that feelings about things are irrelevant. Women’s feelings their fears and anxieties about who gets to share their locker room and see them undressed - are irrelevant. Their psychological distress at being mandated to share their private space with any man who self- identifies as a woman is overblown, exaggerated and irrelevant. Their concerns are simply manifestations of bigotry and transphobia that can be handwaved away.
Yes, yes, only the feelings of transphobes should count. Well argued, you!

Originally Posted by Fengirl View Post
My concern is that this kind of attitude (which is so derogatory and insulting towards women’s feelings) can only serve to embolden those who would show similar disregard toward the feelings of transgender people. You don't get to disregard mine whilst simultaneously demanding that I bend myself out of shape to respect yours. Now THAT'S a contradiction.
It is indeed a contradiction, and watching you happily disregard the feelings of trans people while demanding that they bend themselves out of shape to respect yours is sadly rather par for the course in this thread.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2019, 06:51 PM   #1034
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,216
If trans women have to use mens facilities where nudity comes up a few trans women are uncomfortable.

If women are forced to let trans women into facilities where nudity comes up a lot more women are uncomfortable than the other way round (purely basic numbers).

Question is whose discomfort out weighs the other.

Personally think you go numbers, and women comfort beat trans women comfort.

In the case of the opening post I don't even know why there is an issue as the school has gender neutral toilet facilities trans girls could use.
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2019, 07:39 PM   #1035
deadrose
Illuminator
 
deadrose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: the wet side of the mountains
Posts: 3,221
Which changing room would I have preferred to use? Whichever one had a free changing cubicle or empty stall, regardless of the sign on the door. I'm not at all fussed about that sort of thing, and never have been.
deadrose is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2019, 11:59 PM   #1036
Francesca R
Girl
 
Francesca R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London EC1
Posts: 18,559
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
How you get nobody needs to change in locker rooms from, well anything posted in this thread by anyone at all is a mystery.
More to the point, how you get "nobody needs to change in locker rooms" from the post you are referencing is a mystery. Fengirl wrote "nobody needs to change locker rooms" which would be pointing up the sheer hypocrisy of those like you who suggest males should be able to bulldoze female only space and objection to this is to demonise them.

It seems that in your misogynistic fury you are not reading the content of posts before blasting away. It is also noteworty that you label the first post from a particular member on this topic as "your side" (tribal mindset) so that you think one member saying something different from another member is a "contradiction". Rather--you saying something that nullifies something else you said is a contradiction, as has been pointed out.

Males have been shouting down females and telling them what to think and do for millennia just as you are now. It's getting a little old don't you think?

Last edited by Francesca R; 4th August 2019 at 12:05 AM.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2019, 12:08 AM   #1037
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,216
Originally Posted by Francesca R View Post
More to the point, how you get "nobody needs to change in locker rooms" from the post you are referencing is a mystery. Fengirl wrote "nobody needs to change locker rooms" which would be pointing up the sheer hypocrisy of those like you who suggest males should be able to bulldoze female only space and objection to this is to demonise them.

It seems that in your misogynistic fury you are not reading the content of posts before blasting away. It is also noteworty that you label the first post from a particular member on this topic as "your side" (tribal mindset) so that you think one member saying something different from another member is a "contradiction". Rather--you saying something that nullifies something else you said is a contradiction, as has been pointed out.

Males have been shouting down females and telling them what to think and do for millennia just as you are now. It's getting a little old don't you think?
Perhaps you could point out which male posters have been demanding to be let into womens nude areas.

It seems to just be a load of lefty types doing it on behalf of trans females.
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2019, 12:13 AM   #1038
Parsman
Muse
 
Parsman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 699
So how many women have been attacked or even leered at in women's bathrooms by people identifying as trans in the past year lets say? In that same time how many women have been attacked and sexually humiliated by men in every other area of life? I did risk assessment as part of my job. The risk of any woman suffering an unpleasant experience at the hands of a man (straight or trans) in the women's bathroom is so slight based on any evidence we have that I don't understand why some people get so worked up about it.
__________________
I was not; I have been; I am not; I am content - Epicurus

When you're dead you don't know that you're dead, all the pain is felt by others....................the same thing happens when you're stupid.
Parsman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2019, 12:16 AM   #1039
Francesca R
Girl
 
Francesca R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London EC1
Posts: 18,559
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
Perhaps you could point out which male posters have been demanding to be let into womens nude areas.
I believe I have demonstrated that when called on the question no member here will state this as a demand. However rather conspicuously a couple of them will not state that this should not be demanded either.

It is a recurring suggestion that scurries away under scrutiny only to reappear later. One that is to be dismissed as pure folly.

Tell me if you disagree.

Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
It seems to just be a load of lefty types useful idiots doing it on behalf of trans females predatory males.
(my correction)

Last edited by Francesca R; 4th August 2019 at 02:13 AM.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2019, 12:22 AM   #1040
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,216
The Trans women in womens facilities seems more to be discomfort of the women getting naked in front of them than actual risk of abuse.

The Trans women in mens facilities seems to be more about being attacked and getting naked in fron of dudes.

I haven't heard of a mass attacking trans women in mens facilities, so think it, like women is more discomfort.

So it just depends on whose discomfort you hold higher as a priority.

Just me, but think probably womens as there is more of them to be discomforted, but I really don't mind to much. It seems an issue that women and trans women should sort out amongst themselves.

Any one is welcome in the blokes in the interim.

Promise not to be "Men are evil.....Because they just are" on you
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

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 09:02 AM.
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.