|
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. |
30th November 2012, 05:52 PM | #321 |
Terrestrial Intelligence
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 6,451
|
Here's your homework: next time you go to your favourite health club, do a rough estimate of the area of the locker room, and a rough estimate of the number of blokes in it. Divide the area by the number of men. If you get an area per person greater than 1 square meter, private changing stalls won't take up more floor space. They may even take up less floor space; when people have to do private things in public, they try to create as much distance between them as possible but with privacy seperations people feel more comfortable closer together.
If the number you find is less than 1 square meter double check whether or not you are at a gay orgy. |
__________________
Perhaps nothing is entirely true; and not even that! Multatuli |
|
30th November 2012, 06:00 PM | #322 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,635
|
|
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it. |
|
30th November 2012, 06:30 PM | #323 |
Skepticifimisticalationist
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
|
In what way?
She won't be thrown out of the locker room by staff or have the police called on her for exposing her schlong while naked in the mens' locker room. If you're thinking of Manly Men taking exception to her presence, drawing attention to her, and/or maybe even physically assaulting her, I think that's actually less likely in the mens' locker room, because Manly Men tend to mindfully take steps to avoid being "gay" when half- or fully-nude in the vicinity of other men - to include avoiding drawing attention to the fact that they've looked in the general direction of other naked people. Two years ago while attending my local community college I had a weekly water-aerobic class, and additionally used the pool for free swim at least 9 or 10 times during the semester, and I honestly don't remember hearing more than maybe two dozen words spoken out loud in total, and these consisted solely of curt "hey"s and "mornings" and less-discernible grunts of presence-aknowledgment when two peoples' lockers were so close that their don't-be-rude conditioning overrode their don't-be-gay conditioning. Everyone was proactively ignoring everyone else. Nobody ever engaged in a conversation; you could literally watch and hear conversations in-progress stop once the participants crossed the threshold into the Echoing Hall of Not-Gay, where the slightest whisper would be amplified and broadcast over the entire room. So no, I don't buy that she would be persecuted in the mens' locker room; I think she would be safer there even than around the same people outside of the locker-room setting. Conversely, the chance of her getting persecuted in the womens' locker room is 1, because it's happened - twice. She's been told on, been kicked out, had the police called on her. |
30th November 2012, 06:43 PM | #324 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
|
So, you're saying because everyone really makes an effort to not appear gay, this woman would be A-ok in there? Because heteronormativity is constantly enforced, someone who wore makeup would have no issues that you could see?
This argument seems faulty. You are really saying that she would be free of being "told on" or kicked out in the men's change room? Because no one wants to appear gay? I'm sure you could work out your own analogies for this one. |
30th November 2012, 06:47 PM | #325 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,635
|
|
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it. |
|
30th November 2012, 06:48 PM | #326 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
|
You would have had a better argument if you said that the change rooms you've been to were full of gay men who might protect her somehow chivalrously, rather than that the change rooms were packed with people who must not, must not, must not look gay.
Edit: I say this knowing it's still a bad argument as there are gay guys who would not want a woman in their changeroom. I've just never heard someone argue that a space would be free from transphobia because...homophobia. |
30th November 2012, 07:10 PM | #328 |
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
|
No, it certainly isn't. Part of my standard, though, is, "Would 'she' use 'her' penis to "do" my teenage daughter, who happens to be on the high school swim team, and is standing naked in front of 'her' right now?"
And just as a reminder, here's a condensed version of this line of the conversation. "Most transwomen look just like any other woman when they have their clothes on." "This one looks like a guy in a dress." "Who cares what she looks like?" (For the record, I have no teenage daughter, but you get the point.) |
30th November 2012, 07:23 PM | #329 |
Skepticifimisticalationist
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
|
It does, until you realize that it's the pool, so she wouldn't be wearing makeup because it's not allowed in the pool (and there'd be no point in wearing it anyway since it would get washed off). Even women don't actually wear makeup to the pool. I'd lay odds this individual doesn't wear it in the women's locker room either.
|
30th November 2012, 07:27 PM | #330 |
Skepticifimisticalationist
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
|
|
30th November 2012, 07:35 PM | #331 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
|
Unsupported. There are other women in that change room who might be interested in "doing" your "daughter". The woman's behaviour seems to have been fine; she was asked to leave because of sex organs, not because she was propositioning anyone. You have nothing to support your insinuation that this woman would attack your hypothetical daughter in a fit of uncontrollable lust. At least, she is as likely to do it as the other women.
You are implying that trans people are more likely to attack minors here. Is this really your argument?
Quote:
It's not "Who cares what she looks like?". It's "Some women look as good as guys in dresses." You are judging her gender identity by how good make-up looks on her. And you are requiring her to look better than comparable women of her age. The reason that argument chain of yours goes like that is because you are not satisfied with "like any woman". You set a different standard. Are you saying that you haven't seen women of similar attractiveness? |
30th November 2012, 07:46 PM | #332 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
|
Okay, no make up. (Wait, wouldn't women put on make-up after swimming before they leave the change room? Are you saying this person would never do this because....)
But anyway, you're standing by the argument that an atmosphere where no one wants to appear gay would be a better atmosphere for a person who has a better-than-normal chance of appearing gay (by those standards; really, not heteronormative). What about when she's in this change room of yours, and she puts on her dress? Are you going to say that swimmers don't oft wear dresses? She's still protected because, and tell me if I have your argument incorrect, no one would want to appear gay and that's why nobody would say or do anything bad to someone who put on a dress? Or is this all leading up to an argument that because she has a penis, she probably shouldn't wear dresses? Because it's safer and more comfortable for everyone but her? |
30th November 2012, 07:53 PM | #333 | |||
Terrestrial Intelligence
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 6,451
|
Women wearing make-up in the pool.
|
|||
__________________
Perhaps nothing is entirely true; and not even that! Multatuli |
||||
30th November 2012, 07:57 PM | #334 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
|
|
30th November 2012, 08:10 PM | #335 |
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
|
There's another aspect of this story that didn't come out in the OP, and I only discovered after being able to google the name.
It turns out there were actually 3 locker rooms. There was the men's locker room and the women's locker room, but there was also a small auxiliary locker room. Problem solved, right? Colleen just uses the aux locker room. Perfect. I'm glad we fixed that issue. Except, darn it, he didn't do it. The girls' swim team was told to use the small auxiliary locker room because, ya know, forcing this "woman" to keep "her" dong out of view of the teenage girls would be discrimination, and we can't have that. |
30th November 2012, 08:15 PM | #336 |
Skepticifimisticalationist
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
|
Because the point of having her use the men's locker room is because nobody would notice the junk while she's changing and she would be less likely to attract attention. Putting on the makeup would tend to cancel out the benefit...
Yes - because part of that not-looking-gay involves never talking or spending too long looking at anyone else. Were you not listening when I related my own experience? People don't even talk to friends and acquaintances in the mens' locker room; they're certainly not going to start talking to a complete stranger especially one who might look particularly "gay". Hey, guess what? The pool is in the athletic building, and so-called "normal" female students are actually much more likely to be wearing sweatpants or shorts in those facilities than a dress. She can confidently wear such a garment without feeling like she's compromising her commitment to dressing like a woman, and avoid any potential "awkward situations" in the men's locker room at the same time. I suppose she can change into a dress later in a womens' restroom where there's privacy stalls; indeed she can even put on her makeup there because that kind of thing happens in restrooms. Pool locker rooms not so much. Is it a hassle? Well, I have to concede that yes it is. Is it more of a hassle than occasionally putting up with another woman reporting a "man" in the restroom, occasionally having to explain herself to new people unfamiliar with the situation, occasionally getting kicked out? Well that's a decision that's completely up to her. Personally I prefer Dearborn's solution - put privacy stalls in the locker rooms. That would do more than increase comfort levels vis-a-vis transgender individuals and their classmates; it would also be a boon to modest folks of all stripes. It might even lead to higher registration for aquatic classes, because there's lots of people who avoid them because they don't want to have to be naked around other people or be around naked people. I really don't see a downside to be honest. |
30th November 2012, 08:19 PM | #337 |
Skepticifimisticalationist
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
|
|
30th November 2012, 08:23 PM | #338 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
|
|
30th November 2012, 08:25 PM | #339 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,635
|
|
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it. |
|
30th November 2012, 08:27 PM | #340 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,635
|
|
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it. |
|
30th November 2012, 08:45 PM | #341 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
|
Your solution is that she should not be noticed at all. Maybe she should dress as a locker?
Maybe you don't understand. She shouldn't have to look like a man to use the change rooms. She is a legally-recognized woman. Someone who thinks that the area is zoned "No Gay looking" might talk to someone wearing feminine clothes. Even if you think it is improbable. Amazing. your argument is that someone who has been swimming is unlikely to wear a dress. You would allow her to wear women's clothes, as long as they weren't womanly enough that anyone would recognize them as women's clothes. There is a flaw in your argument. By this argument, wouldn't it be easier for everyone if she gave up swimming altogether? Who needs the potential hassle, right? You're blaming the harassment on the person being harassed. To summarize. If in women's change room, go somewhere else. If in men's change room, pretend you are a man so no one notices you might not be. |
30th November 2012, 08:55 PM | #342 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
|
And as an aside to the idea that homophobia somehow prevents the possibility of anyone acting homophobic, everyone know that "Gay" looks like basically anything, right?
|
30th November 2012, 08:59 PM | #343 |
Skepticifimisticalationist
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
|
Only because you haven't seen what she looks like. And by that I don't mean that she's ugly, I mean that she looks like a middle-aged man wearing a dress.
|
30th November 2012, 08:59 PM | #344 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
|
Or are you saying that she is safe, specifically in the change room, and should stay in there as much as possible, because, statistically speaking, most homophobic bashings occur outside of a change room? Because everyone is too shy to do it in a change room because... no talking to each other? Because, talking means gay?
|
30th November 2012, 09:01 PM | #345 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
|
|
30th November 2012, 09:10 PM | #346 |
Skepticifimisticalationist
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
|
Stop there. Your entire post is based on an incorrect reading of the intention of my post you're replying to.
I was simply taking issue with the bald assertion that she couldn't use the men's locker room because it's a foregone conclusion she would become a victim of some kind of violence in there. Leaving aside the fact that's a pretty blatantly sexist assertion to make, I believe it's not true, and that's really it. These other things about wearing sweatpants or whatever - all that's happening there is people are explaining the various potential problems she might encounter in the men's locker room, and I'm suggesting possible workarounds to those problems. I'm proposing alternative choices she can make, not proposing a list of "allowed"s and "not allowed"s. Did you just not read the part of my post you left out of your reply, the part that begins with "Personally I prefer Dearborn's solution - put privacy stalls in the locker rooms."? |
30th November 2012, 09:15 PM | #347 |
Skepticifimisticalationist
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
|
That's it - I'm done arguing with you until you start reading what my posts are replying to before arguing against them.
Poster thaiboxerken said "men will definitely be watching her undress because they'll think it's a woman undressing". I said "I disagree because she very clearly looks like a man". That's a perfectly valid rebuttal. It has nothing to do with "attractive" or whether it actually makes her "not a woman". LTR. |
30th November 2012, 09:56 PM | #348 |
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
|
I have no clue what you are talking about.
But I do know enough that I can see through this jerk's sham claims. Throughout the first part of this thread, we were told, and I believe correctly told, the way that transwomen would behave. Transwomen hide their boy parts as much as possible. Transwomen don't want to attract attention. That's what transwomen do, right? So this dude had an opportunity to have a locker room all to himself. He could have changed unseen by anyone. No fuss. No discomfort. No embarassment. He refused. He told the teenage girls to go there instead. What possible reason could he have for doing that? Well, it's hard to read minds, but I'm thinking that one possible reason is that he looked forward to the opportunity to show off his dick to a bunch of women. Ok, well, the girls will be gone,so he can't show off to the teenagers anymore, but the college students will still be there. And I've started calling Colleen "he". Is he "really" a "she"? Who can tell? It's not like he knows. I think he's someone with male parts, who will screw anything that moves, who likes to shock people, and who has sexual fantasies about being a woman. Does that make Colleen "really" a woman? I don't know, and I don't care. I know that anyone who tells a high school girls' swim team that they have to leave and use the small locker room unless they look at his dick is a disgusting individual. |
30th November 2012, 10:09 PM | #349 |
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
|
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...72#post8763872
And just google her name. There's a bunch of transgender bloggers out there who aren't so keen on supporting her. |
30th November 2012, 10:37 PM | #350 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,090
|
|
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing. "Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong |
|
30th November 2012, 10:45 PM | #351 |
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
|
|
1st December 2012, 12:10 AM | #352 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,611
|
Quote:
|
__________________
http://www.troubador.co.uk/book_info.asp?bookid=2499 “She would be half a planet away, floating in a turquoise sea, dancing by moonlight to flamenco guitar.” ~ Janet Fitch The Gweat and Tewwible Winged One |
|
1st December 2012, 07:13 AM | #353 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,449
|
That's my thinking too
It's just such a bizarre issue to take a stand on, this demanding her right to expose herself to the unsuspecting. Show me that you were discriminated against when you applied for that job at the cosmetics counter because "they don't hire men" and I'll support you. |
1st December 2012, 07:34 AM | #354 |
Terrestrial Intelligence
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 6,451
|
To me, she looks like a middle aged transsexual. She in fact looks less blokish than some.
Usually, yes. There are of course no absolutes in human behaviour. Transwomen, just like anyone else, can sometimes violate the "don't be a jerk" rule. That alone does not make them any less of a transwoman.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
There is absolutely no reason to believe that that's what happened. All there is evidence for is that a transgendered person acted like a jerk; something that isn't all that uncommon. |
__________________
Perhaps nothing is entirely true; and not even that! Multatuli |
|
1st December 2012, 07:49 AM | #355 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The great American southeast
Posts: 9,008
|
|
__________________
If at first you don't succeed try try again. Then if you fail to succeed to Hell with that. Try something else. |
|
1st December 2012, 08:03 AM | #356 |
Orthogonal Vector
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
|
|
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin |
|
1st December 2012, 09:55 AM | #357 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,090
|
Maybe it is a transgendered person who acted like a jerk.
However by this person's own description of themselves before all this happened doesn't sound like a transgendered person but like a bi guy who likes to dress in drag. If the qualification for being transgendered nothing more than, 'because that's what they say they are', then yeah, it's a transsexual being a jerk (doing something I would find objectionable from a man in the men's locker room by the way). If to be transgendered you have to have the other indicators then not so much. Either way, I'm now having a hard time feeling bad for or siding with this person even though I wanted to give the benefit of the doubt. |
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing. "Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong |
|
1st December 2012, 10:51 AM | #358 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
|
This is unfair.
This woman has done considerably more than just say something. She is on estrogen, she lives as a woman, she legally changed her name and status, and she's put herself in the public to face constant questioning and testing of this type. She has submitted herself to medical, legal, and social trials of her claim that she is a woman. Some people here might have disqualified her based on her attractiveness or level of transitioning, but it is not right to make her seem like a casual dabbler trying something out for the weekend. You wouldn't casually do what she has already done. |
1st December 2012, 11:09 AM | #359 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
|
|
1st December 2012, 11:26 AM | #360 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 10,281
|
I don't know of any at my current company, but in my previous job there were two (both male-to-female). I can't say I gave the matter much thought after the initial surprise.
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|