[Moderated] [ED] Discussion: Trans Women Are not Women (Part 6) - Page 5

Rolfe · 13th February 2021, 01:02 PM

A lot of the time I think Cain is deadpan performance art.

Collin237 · 13th February 2021, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by Rolfe

A lot of the time I think Cain is deadpan performance art.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cain_(disambiguation)

Sherkeu · 13th February 2021, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by cullennz

Apologies, but I am not getting what your point is.

Which side of the discussion do you equate to flat earthers?

Flat earthers are people who I personally can't imagine how it is they came to their view when there is so much evidence contrary to it.

So let's ask and not beat with sticks.
A bit like that dress that people saw different colors (I saw white and gold), or the yanni and whatever recording at different hertz people could hear.

And even if every trans person out there had anosognosia, (which I do not think is true- but may be for some) we'd still learn something.

d4m10n · 13th February 2021, 01:30 PM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

The entire question has been declared offensive to even ask.

At least Rolfe and Boudicca can agree on something.

ETA: But seriously, both of them feel like their civil rights are under threat by people who severely undervalue their respective identities.

ETA2: It's easy for me to joke about this given that I never feel particularly threatened in public spaces, to include changing rooms and such. ��

cullennz · 13th February 2021, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

Flat earthers are people who I personally can't imagine how it is they came to their view when there is so much evidence contrary to it.

So let's ask and not beat with sticks.
A bit like that dress that people saw different colors (I saw white and gold), or the yanni and whatever recording at different hertz people could hear.

And even if every trans person out there had anosognosia, (which I do not think is true- but may be for some) we'd still learn something.

I realise this, but which side of the trans discussion do you consider flat earthers?

Sherkeu · 13th February 2021, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by cullennz

I realise this, but which side of the trans discussion do you consider flat earthers?

I would put their argument on that type of irrational side.
But then they'd do the same to me.

How about you?

theprestige · 13th February 2021, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by Collin237

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cain_(disambiguation)

Your link was broken. I've fixed it.

smartcooky · 13th February 2021, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

Trans women were/are always women, that's what you don't understand. I was a woman who was assigned a male gender/sex based on my genitals and the attempt was made to socialize me as a male, but it was a failure because I never accepted it.

By transitioning I'm simply correcting an error that was made early on in my life.

This is complete BS

If you were born with a dick, you are physiologically male; if you were born with a ****, you are physiologically female.

You may psychologically wish you were female; you may genuinely believe yourself to be female, and your feelings about that are perfectly valid and you every right to believe them... but any rights you think this grants you end when your beliefs negatively impact on the rights of others.

Transwomen might be gender-women, but they are NOT physiologically females, they are physiologically males, and they should not be allowed to compete in female sports.

JoeMorgue · 13th February 2021, 02:17 PM

I figured the 4 thread long, 1,000+ hairsplit we argued about the difference between gender/sex that was SUPER IMPORTANT GUYS was a total red herring.

theprestige · 13th February 2021, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I figured the 4 thread long, 1,000+ hairsplit we argued about the difference between gender/sex that was SUPER IMPORTANT GUYS was a total red herring.

Boudicca's attempt to erase that difference entirely kinda signals to me that it is in fact super important. And even though we never got an explicit formal consensus, it seems pretty clear that just about everyone recognizes the difference and agrees on the terms.

d4m10n · 13th February 2021, 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I figured the 4 thread long, 1,000+ hairsplit we argued about the difference between gender/sex that was SUPER IMPORTANT GUYS was a total red herring.

I do find myself wondering if there is some way to ask the key questions at issue here without tripping over the key terms, all of which appear to have been slipping around a bit.

For example, suppose we have two separate sets of rooms allowing marginal personal privacy while people change into their workout gear or swimsuits. What are the optimal physical or psychological criteria we should use in order to assign people to one of these two facilities?

cullennz · 13th February 2021, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

I would put their argument on that type of irrational side.
But then they'd do the same to me.

How about you?

When it comes to the current trans discussion, I see neither side as irrational.

There is a fair bit of uber-stubborn from both sides, but nothing I would equate with flat-earthers.

Which is why I didn't get your original post.

Frankly I am kind of ambivalent with the whole argument, as I am a dude and don't care who comes into the dudes open plan changing room.

But I can see why some females would be against dudes thinking they are females waving their schlong around in the same situation would think differently.

Personally think if area is compartmentalised for privacy then status quo seems to work.

Chicks with dicks in prisons with women is stupid.

And chicks with dicks in womens shelters is just traumatising.

And the dude with all the law suits because people wont shave his ball sack isn't worthy of me addressing him as a women as he is obviously an **********

theprestige · 13th February 2021, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by d4m10n

I do find myself wondering if there is some way to ask the key questions at issue here without tripping over the key terms, all of which appear to have been slipping around a bit.

For example, suppose we have two separate sets of rooms allowing marginal personal privacy while people change into their workout gear or swimsuits. What are the optimal physical or psychological criteria we should use in order to assign people to one of these two facilities?

Chesterton's Fence seems to be working about as well as anything can be expected to work.

As long as we have people running around saying that transwomen are biologically female, and asking why sex-based segregation is even a thing, it's probably for the best if we just keep things the way they are. Abolishing a rule just to appease people who don't understand why the rule exists in the first place will cause more problems than it solves.

Sherkeu · 13th February 2021, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by cullennz

When it comes to the current trans discussion, I see neither side as irrational.

There is a fair bit of uber-stubborn from both sides, but nothing I would equate with flat-earthers.

Which is why I didn't get your original post.

The Flat-earther example was brought up by MisAndreG- so I used it to respond.

But in terms of sharing space....in the last iteration I asked the other females here to rank identities by who theyd be comfortable rooming with.

Any female (lesbians & trans men included), and any gay male all came before the transwomen.

cullennz · 13th February 2021, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

The Flat-earther example was brought up by MisAndreG- so I used it to respond.

But in terms of sharing space....in the last iteration I asked the other females here to rank identities by who theyd be comfortable rooming with.

Any female (lesbians & trans men included), and any gay male all came before the transwomen.

I would think that the reason is a lot of people can't empathise with something they have never had to deal with.

I think most people can get their head around being the gay, but being a completely different gender in your head is hard to conceptualise.

Escpecially when it is all inner and can obviously be taken advantage of by weirdo's.

Which while is probably in the main, unlikely, is still a risk.

Mind you, you could say the same thing about a dude pretending to be gay.

But that is why there are environments separated by sex and not gender.

Collin237 · 13th February 2021, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Chesterton's Fence seems to be working about as well as anything can be expected to work.

As long as we have people running around saying that transwomen are biologically female, and asking why sex-based segregation is even a thing, it's probably for the best if we just keep things the way they are. Abolishing a rule just to appease people who don't understand why the rule exists in the first place will cause more problems than it solves.

But what does everyone mean by "biology"? Scientifically, every organ, even the brain, has a biological function. But colloquially, "biology" is usually a euphemism for "reproduction". And that allows for a bait-and-switch game between the two sides.

The argument seems to be that gender is "social", but restrooms and locker rooms have "biological" significance. That's backwards.

Gender is the same biological phenomenon that, for example, gives some species of bird a typically masculine or typically feminine song.

The social construct is the need, in Chesterton's sense, to separate people by genitalia to avoid socially disruptive behavior.

Thermal · 13th February 2021, 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by Collin237

But what does everyone mean by "biology"? Scientifically, every organ, even the brain, has a biological function. But colloquially, "biology" is usually a euphemism for "reproduction". And that allows for a bait-and-switch game between the two sides.

The argument seems to be that gender is "social", but restrooms and locker rooms have "biological" significance. That's backwards.

Gender is the same biological phenomenon that, for example, gives some species of bird a typically masculine or typically feminine song.

The social construct is the need, in Chesterton's sense, to separate people by genitalia to avoid socially disruptive behavior.

Naw man. Sex is real. Gender is just appearance.

Meadmaker · 13th February 2021, 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Is it really about the opposite sex, or is rather a broader concern of modesty in front of any person that might find their nudity titillating?

(A couple of days old, I know, but....)
I think it's the opposite sex, and this is more true for women.

I don't think the average woman is all that concerned about modesty in the presence of lesbians, assuming the lesbian's behavior isn't problematic.

I think guys might be a little bit more squeamish about being naked in front of a gay guy. I'm not, anymore, but I will admit the first time I took a shower in a locker room after one of my friends came out of the closet, it was a bit awkward for me. That lasted about 10 minutes. (He was someone that I frequently joined in athletic competitions with, so taking a shower in his presence wasn't unusual.)

Maybe everyone is modest in the presence of a male if we think the male might be enjoying the view. For females, there's at least some doubt about that even among people who are gay or who we think might be gay.

It's very hard to sort out what is social conditioning and what is instinct among humans. I have a feeling that modesty is at least partially instinctive, and is definitely sex-linked, but proving that would be difficult or impossible.

cullennz · 13th February 2021, 03:52 PM

Originally Posted by Collin237

But what does everyone mean by "biology"? Scientifically, every organ, even the brain, has a biological function. But colloquially, "biology" is usually a euphemism for "reproduction". And that allows for a bait-and-switch game between the two sides.

The argument seems to be that gender is "social", but restrooms and locker rooms have "biological" significance. That's backwards.

Gender is the same biological phenomenon that, for example, gives some species of bird a typically masculine or typically feminine song.

The social construct is the need, in Chesterton's sense, to separate people by genitalia to avoid socially disruptive behavior.

You are over complicating something pretty simple.

In probably 99% of people they either have a vagina or a dick,

These get separated in certain circumstances to meet peoples sensibilities.

The other 1% (probably lower) just have to kind of live with it or try to go unisex.

I haven't seen many cases of trans women being attacked by blokes in dudes lav's so not sure what the massive issue is.

Collin237 · 13th February 2021, 04:40 PM

Originally Posted by Thermal

Naw man. Sex is real. Gender is just appearance.

Yes, but "real" and "appearance" don't necessarily map onto "biological" and "social".

Collin237 · 13th February 2021, 04:45 PM

Originally Posted by cullennz

You are over complicating something pretty simple.

I was trying to do the opposite.

Originally Posted by cullennz

I haven't seen many cases of trans women being attacked by blokes in dudes lav's so not sure what the massive issue is.

Which restroom to use had always been a cultural custom. Suddenly some prudes made separation by genitals into an enforceable law. So there was a protest against the intrusion of authority into a private issue. Then everyone forgot what they were fighting for.

Meadmaker · 13th February 2021, 06:17 PM

Originally Posted by Collin237

Suddenly some prudes made separation by genitals into an enforceable law.

I hear this and variations on it very often, and I just find it laughable every time. It's as if people were trying to push the narrative that once upon a time, people could use whatever bathroom or locker room they wanted, and then in 2015 or thereabouts, some people in North Carolina tried to push some sort of never before seen legislation onto the world.

Really? What do you suppose would have happened to a guy found in a woman's restroom or locker room in 1950? And when I say "guy", I mean, "anyone with a penis", because in 1950 it would never have occurred to anyone at all that somehow it meant anything else.

cullennz · 13th February 2021, 06:35 PM

Originally Posted by Collin237

I was trying to do the opposite.

Which restroom to use had always been a cultural custom. Suddenly some prudes made separation by genitals into an enforceable law. So there was a protest against the intrusion of authority into a private issue. Then everyone forgot what they were fighting for.

By what do you mean "always been a cultural custom)"
Mind throwing in some years and links to examples?

Collin237 · 13th February 2021, 06:47 PM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

It's as if people were trying to push the narrative that once upon a time, people could use whatever bathroom or locker room they wanted, and then in 2015 or thereabouts, some people in North Carolina tried to push some sort of never before seen legislation onto the world.

It's as if you pulled the words "2015" and "North Carolina" right out of my mind.

Or rather, you know very well what I'm referring to.

Collin237 · 13th February 2021, 06:52 PM

Originally Posted by cullennz

By what do you mean "always been a cultural custom)"
Mind throwing in some years and links to examples?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public...6_Security_Act

which Meadmaker practically revealed to me. So much for the "find your own sources" shtik.

cullennz · 13th February 2021, 07:00 PM

Originally Posted by Collin237

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public...6_Security_Act

which Meadmaker practically revealed to me. So much for the "find your own sources" shtik.

Oh

We all live in the US now?

Thanks for that revelation.

cullennz · 13th February 2021, 07:02 PM

Actually no.

We apparently all live in Nth Carolina

Collin237 · 13th February 2021, 07:26 PM

Originally Posted by cullennz

Actually no.

We apparently all live in Nth Carolina

We're apparently all in a North Carolina state of mind.

Meadmaker · 13th February 2021, 07:31 PM

Originally Posted by cullennz

Actually no.

We apparently all live in Nth Carolina

The point is that ever since people built boys and girls bathrooms, it has always been unacceptable for a boy to go into the girls bathroom, much less locker room. Depending on the exact time, place, and circumstances, a boy in the girls' bathroom (or locker room), would either be beaten to a pulp, subjected to corporal punishment (i.e. in schools), arrested, or some combination of the above. Maybe, if it was too much trouble, they might just be run off the property with the threat of future arrest, i.e. "If you ever show your face around here again I'm calling the cops!"

It has never been legal, ever.

No one ever bothered to make a specific law stating it because everyone knew it was illegal. If prosecution were desired (i.e. if someone decided "beating to a pulp" was inadequate or inappropriate) they might use some sort of "peeping tom" law, or they would stretch some sort of disturbing the peace or trespassing law to fit the circumstances. One thing is for certain. Nowhere in the United States would anyone have put up with it, and I am pretty sure the same would be true in all of the English speaking world, and pretty much everywhere else, too.

In 2015, faced with transgender males (i.e. transwomen) using women's private areas, the state of North Carolina said they didn't like that, and they actually wrote it into law for government owned buildings. Why did they do that? To codify the law that had always existed, but it never occurred to anyone that there was some need to write it down.

The laughable part is the claim that somehow North Carolina was introducing some brand new thing that had never been done before. No. They were making sure things stayed as they had always been until very recently.

Whether it is a good idea or a bad idea to do what North Carolina did is a secondary issue. The point is that good idea or bad idea, it was not a new idea.

cullennz · 13th February 2021, 07:48 PM

I think we need to rewind a bit from some place in the US no one actually relates to.

https://www.historic-uk.com/CultureU...ts-in-Britain/

Collin237 · 13th February 2021, 08:34 PM

Originally Posted by cullennz

I think we need to rewind a bit from some place in the US no one actually relates to.

https://www.historic-uk.com/CultureU...ts-in-Britain/

Have the Maori stated an opinion on this issue?

cullennz · 13th February 2021, 08:37 PM

Originally Posted by Collin237

Have the Maori stated an opinion on this issue?

I can't speak for all of us, but we tend to just go with the flow...…..So to speak.

Collin237 · 13th February 2021, 09:17 PM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Depending on the exact time, place, and circumstances, a boy in the girls' bathroom (or locker room), would either be beaten to a pulp,

That would be unconstitutional.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CO...-1992-10-9.pdf

cullennz · 13th February 2021, 09:22 PM

Originally Posted by Collin237

That would be unconstitutional.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CO...-1992-10-9.pdf

Kind of thought I made the point earlier, but just posting US law crap is a bit moot as half the people on the forum don't live there.

Hence the "International" part of the url.

But realise it may be hard to get your head round.

The US is a big influential place and can be a bit insular.

Collin237 · 13th February 2021, 09:37 PM

Originally Posted by cullennz

Kind of thought I made the point earlier, but just posting US law crap is a bit moot as half the people on the forum don't live there.

Hence the "International" part of the url.

But realise it may be hard to get your head round.

The US is a big influential place and can be a bit insular.

For the half that do, the concept of something unstated being illegal doesn't make sense. We don't have a court of chancery. Every case that doesn't fit the legal formulas is added to them.

cullennz · 13th February 2021, 09:43 PM

Originally Posted by Collin237

For the half that do, the concept of something unstated being illegal doesn't make sense. We don't have a court of chancery. Every case that doesn't fit the legal formulas is added to them.

All good.

If you want to disenfranchise half the people reading your posts this is cool.

Can't help seeing a certain irony in doing it with this topic though, tbf.

cullennz · 13th February 2021, 09:44 PM

That was mean. I apologise.

Collin237 · 13th February 2021, 10:51 PM

Originally Posted by cullennz

All good.

If you want to disenfranchise half the people reading your posts this is cool.

Can't help seeing a certain irony in doing it with this topic though, tbf.

I realized something that might have been confusing to the other people from the US, and I tried to explain it. I don't see how that would be dissing anyone.

cullennz · 13th February 2021, 11:56 PM

Sorry mate. I wasn't really dissing you. Just thought quoting US laws was a bit irrelevant.

Collin237 · 14th February 2021, 12:26 AM

Originally Posted by cullennz

Sorry mate. I wasn't really dissing you. Just thought quoting US laws was a bit irrelevant.

The passing of the bill in North Carolina happened in the context of a two-restroom system only a few decades old, not the global version. So when Meadmaker was painting the picture of an exordial tradition, rather than a hard-won modern liberty, it was indeed relevant that I reminded him that the entire incident is enclosed in US politics.

13th February 2021, 01:02 PM	#161
Rolfe Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NT 150 511 Posts: 47,216	A lot of the time I think Cain is deadpan performance art.
	__________________ "The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

13th February 2021, 01:20 PM	#162
Collin237 Muse Join Date: Sep 2015 Posts: 575	Originally Posted by Rolfe A lot of the time I think Cain is deadpan performance art. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cain_(disambiguation)
Collin237 Muse Join Date: Sep 2015 Posts: 575	__________________ We hold this truth to be self-evident. All records are created with the same number of bytes.

13th February 2021, 01:30 PM	#164
d4m10n Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Mounts Farm Posts: 6,688	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue The entire question has been declared offensive to even ask. At least Rolfe and Boudicca can agree on something. ETA: But seriously, both of them feel like their civil rights are under threat by people who severely undervalue their respective identities. ETA2: It's easy for me to joke about this given that I never feel particularly threatened in public spaces, to include changing rooms and such. ��
	__________________ "Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin Last edited by d4m10n; 13th February 2021 at 02:12 PM.

13th February 2021, 01:53 PM	#165
cullennz Embarrasingly illiterate Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: NZ Posts: 19,996	Originally Posted by Sherkeu Flat earthers are people who I personally can't imagine how it is they came to their view when there is so much evidence contrary to it. So let's ask and not beat with sticks. A bit like that dress that people saw different colors (I saw white and gold), or the yanni and whatever recording at different hertz people could hear. And even if every trans person out there had anosognosia, (which I do not think is true- but may be for some) we'd still learn something. I realise this, but which side of the trans discussion do you consider flat earthers?
	__________________ "I mean, you've got the first sort of mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a story-book, man," Biden said. 2007 https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna16911044

13th February 2021, 02:16 PM	#168
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 17,189	Originally Posted by Boudicca90 Trans women were/are always women, that's what you don't understand. I was a woman who was assigned a male gender/sex based on my genitals and the attempt was made to socialize me as a male, but it was a failure because I never accepted it. By transitioning I'm simply correcting an error that was made early on in my life. This is complete BS If you were born with a dick, you are physiologically male; if you were born with a ****, you are physiologically female. You may psychologically wish you were female; you may genuinely believe yourself to be female, and your feelings about that are perfectly valid and you every right to believe them... but any rights you think this grants you end when your beliefs negatively impact on the rights of others. Transwomen might be gender-women, but they are NOT physiologically females, they are physiologically males, and they should not be allowed to compete in female sports.
	__________________ I want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms. - Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project) If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! ! Last edited by smartcooky; 13th February 2021 at 02:18 PM.

13th February 2021, 01:27 PM	#163
Sherkeu Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Disneyland Posts: 2,485	Originally Posted by cullennz Apologies, but I am not getting what your point is. Which side of the discussion do you equate to flat earthers? Flat earthers are people who I personally can't imagine how it is they came to their view when there is so much evidence contrary to it. So let's ask and not beat with sticks. A bit like that dress that people saw different colors (I saw white and gold), or the yanni and whatever recording at different hertz people could hear. And even if every trans person out there had anosognosia, (which I do not think is true- but may be for some) we'd still learn something.

13th February 2021, 01:59 PM	#166
Sherkeu Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Disneyland Posts: 2,485	Originally Posted by cullennz I realise this, but which side of the trans discussion do you consider flat earthers? I would put their argument on that type of irrational side. But then they'd do the same to me. How about you?

13th February 2021, 02:15 PM	#167
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 50,622	Originally Posted by Collin237 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cain_(disambiguation) Your link was broken. I've fixed it.

13th February 2021, 02:17 PM	#169
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 31,524	I figured the 4 thread long, 1,000+ hairsplit we argued about the difference between gender/sex that was SUPER IMPORTANT GUYS was a total red herring.
	__________________ Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."

13th February 2021, 02:26 PM	#170
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 50,622	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue I figured the 4 thread long, 1,000+ hairsplit we argued about the difference between gender/sex that was SUPER IMPORTANT GUYS was a total red herring. Boudicca's attempt to erase that difference entirely kinda signals to me that it is in fact super important. And even though we never got an explicit formal consensus, it seems pretty clear that just about everyone recognizes the difference and agrees on the terms.

13th February 2021, 02:38 PM	#171
d4m10n Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Mounts Farm Posts: 6,688	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue I figured the 4 thread long, 1,000+ hairsplit we argued about the difference between gender/sex that was SUPER IMPORTANT GUYS was a total red herring. I do find myself wondering if there is some way to ask the key questions at issue here without tripping over the key terms, all of which appear to have been slipping around a bit. For example, suppose we have two separate sets of rooms allowing marginal personal privacy while people change into their workout gear or swimsuits. What are the optimal physical or psychological criteria we should use in order to assign people to one of these two facilities?
	__________________ "Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin

13th February 2021, 02:43 PM	#172
cullennz Embarrasingly illiterate Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: NZ Posts: 19,996	Originally Posted by Sherkeu I would put their argument on that type of irrational side. But then they'd do the same to me. How about you? When it comes to the current trans discussion, I see neither side as irrational. There is a fair bit of uber-stubborn from both sides, but nothing I would equate with flat-earthers. Which is why I didn't get your original post. Frankly I am kind of ambivalent with the whole argument, as I am a dude and don't care who comes into the dudes open plan changing room. But I can see why some females would be against dudes thinking they are females waving their schlong around in the same situation would think differently. Personally think if area is compartmentalised for privacy then status quo seems to work. Chicks with dicks in prisons with women is stupid. And chicks with dicks in womens shelters is just traumatising. And the dude with all the law suits because people wont shave his ball sack isn't worthy of me addressing him as a women as he is obviously an **********
	__________________ "I mean, you've got the first sort of mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a story-book, man," Biden said. 2007 https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna16911044

13th February 2021, 03:04 PM	#173
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 50,622	Originally Posted by d4m10n I do find myself wondering if there is some way to ask the key questions at issue here without tripping over the key terms, all of which appear to have been slipping around a bit. For example, suppose we have two separate sets of rooms allowing marginal personal privacy while people change into their workout gear or swimsuits. What are the optimal physical or psychological criteria we should use in order to assign people to one of these two facilities? Chesterton's Fence seems to be working about as well as anything can be expected to work. As long as we have people running around saying that transwomen are biologically female, and asking why sex-based segregation is even a thing, it's probably for the best if we just keep things the way they are. Abolishing a rule just to appease people who don't understand why the rule exists in the first place will cause more problems than it solves.

13th February 2021, 03:19 PM	#174
Sherkeu Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Disneyland Posts: 2,485	Originally Posted by cullennz When it comes to the current trans discussion, I see neither side as irrational. There is a fair bit of uber-stubborn from both sides, but nothing I would equate with flat-earthers. Which is why I didn't get your original post. The Flat-earther example was brought up by MisAndreG- so I used it to respond. But in terms of sharing space....in the last iteration I asked the other females here to rank identities by who theyd be comfortable rooming with. Any female (lesbians & trans men included), and any gay male all came before the transwomen.

13th February 2021, 03:26 PM	#175
cullennz Embarrasingly illiterate Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: NZ Posts: 19,996	Originally Posted by Sherkeu The Flat-earther example was brought up by MisAndreG- so I used it to respond. But in terms of sharing space....in the last iteration I asked the other females here to rank identities by who theyd be comfortable rooming with. Any female (lesbians & trans men included), and any gay male all came before the transwomen. I would think that the reason is a lot of people can't empathise with something they have never had to deal with. I think most people can get their head around being the gay, but being a completely different gender in your head is hard to conceptualise. Escpecially when it is all inner and can obviously be taken advantage of by weirdo's. Which while is probably in the main, unlikely, is still a risk. Mind you, you could say the same thing about a dude pretending to be gay. But that is why there are environments separated by sex and not gender.
	__________________ "I mean, you've got the first sort of mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a story-book, man," Biden said. 2007 https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna16911044

13th February 2021, 03:40 PM	#176
Collin237 Muse Join Date: Sep 2015 Posts: 575	Originally Posted by theprestige Chesterton's Fence seems to be working about as well as anything can be expected to work. As long as we have people running around saying that transwomen are biologically female, and asking why sex-based segregation is even a thing, it's probably for the best if we just keep things the way they are. Abolishing a rule just to appease people who don't understand why the rule exists in the first place will cause more problems than it solves. But what does everyone mean by "biology"? Scientifically, every organ, even the brain, has a biological function. But colloquially, "biology" is usually a euphemism for "reproduction". And that allows for a bait-and-switch game between the two sides. The argument seems to be that gender is "social", but restrooms and locker rooms have "biological" significance. That's backwards. Gender is the same biological phenomenon that, for example, gives some species of bird a typically masculine or typically feminine song. The social construct is the need, in Chesterton's sense, to separate people by genitalia to avoid socially disruptive behavior.
Collin237 Muse Join Date: Sep 2015 Posts: 575	__________________ We hold this truth to be self-evident. All records are created with the same number of bytes.

13th February 2021, 03:50 PM	#177
Thermal Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2016 Location: East Coast USA Posts: 14,067	Originally Posted by Collin237 But what does everyone mean by "biology"? Scientifically, every organ, even the brain, has a biological function. But colloquially, "biology" is usually a euphemism for "reproduction". And that allows for a bait-and-switch game between the two sides. The argument seems to be that gender is "social", but restrooms and locker rooms have "biological" significance. That's backwards. Gender is the same biological phenomenon that, for example, gives some species of bird a typically masculine or typically feminine song. The social construct is the need, in Chesterton's sense, to separate people by genitalia to avoid socially disruptive behavior. Naw man. Sex is real. Gender is just appearance.
	__________________ We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain

13th February 2021, 03:50 PM	#178
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 25,514	Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey Is it really about the opposite sex, or is rather a broader concern of modesty in front of any person that might find their nudity titillating? (A couple of days old, I know, but....) I think it's the opposite sex, and this is more true for women. I don't think the average woman is all that concerned about modesty in the presence of lesbians, assuming the lesbian's behavior isn't problematic. I think guys might be a little bit more squeamish about being naked in front of a gay guy. I'm not, anymore, but I will admit the first time I took a shower in a locker room after one of my friends came out of the closet, it was a bit awkward for me. That lasted about 10 minutes. (He was someone that I frequently joined in athletic competitions with, so taking a shower in his presence wasn't unusual.) Maybe everyone is modest in the presence of a male if we think the male might be enjoying the view. For females, there's at least some doubt about that even among people who are gay or who we think might be gay. It's very hard to sort out what is social conditioning and what is instinct among humans. I have a feeling that modesty is at least partially instinctive, and is definitely sex-linked, but proving that would be difficult or impossible.
	__________________ Yes, yes. I know you are right. But would it hurt you to provide some information? Last edited by Meadmaker; 13th February 2021 at 03:53 PM.

13th February 2021, 03:52 PM	#179
cullennz Embarrasingly illiterate Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: NZ Posts: 19,996	Originally Posted by Collin237 But what does everyone mean by "biology"? Scientifically, every organ, even the brain, has a biological function. But colloquially, "biology" is usually a euphemism for "reproduction". And that allows for a bait-and-switch game between the two sides. The argument seems to be that gender is "social", but restrooms and locker rooms have "biological" significance. That's backwards. Gender is the same biological phenomenon that, for example, gives some species of bird a typically masculine or typically feminine song. The social construct is the need, in Chesterton's sense, to separate people by genitalia to avoid socially disruptive behavior. You are over complicating something pretty simple. In probably 99% of people they either have a vagina or a dick, These get separated in certain circumstances to meet peoples sensibilities. The other 1% (probably lower) just have to kind of live with it or try to go unisex. I haven't seen many cases of trans women being attacked by blokes in dudes lav's so not sure what the massive issue is.
	__________________ "I mean, you've got the first sort of mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a story-book, man," Biden said. 2007 https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna16911044

13th February 2021, 04:40 PM	#180
Collin237 Muse Join Date: Sep 2015 Posts: 575	Originally Posted by Thermal Naw man. Sex is real. Gender is just appearance. Yes, but "real" and "appearance" don't necessarily map onto "biological" and "social".
Collin237 Muse Join Date: Sep 2015 Posts: 575	__________________ We hold this truth to be self-evident. All records are created with the same number of bytes.

13th February 2021, 04:45 PM	#181
Collin237 Muse Join Date: Sep 2015 Posts: 575	Originally Posted by cullennz You are over complicating something pretty simple. I was trying to do the opposite. Originally Posted by cullennz I haven't seen many cases of trans women being attacked by blokes in dudes lav's so not sure what the massive issue is. Which restroom to use had always been a cultural custom. Suddenly some prudes made separation by genitals into an enforceable law. So there was a protest against the intrusion of authority into a private issue. Then everyone forgot what they were fighting for.
Collin237 Muse Join Date: Sep 2015 Posts: 575	__________________ We hold this truth to be self-evident. All records are created with the same number of bytes. Last edited by Collin237; 13th February 2021 at 04:56 PM.

13th February 2021, 06:17 PM	#182
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 25,514	Originally Posted by Collin237 Suddenly some prudes made separation by genitals into an enforceable law. I hear this and variations on it very often, and I just find it laughable every time. It's as if people were trying to push the narrative that once upon a time, people could use whatever bathroom or locker room they wanted, and then in 2015 or thereabouts, some people in North Carolina tried to push some sort of never before seen legislation onto the world. Really? What do you suppose would have happened to a guy found in a woman's restroom or locker room in 1950? And when I say "guy", I mean, "anyone with a penis", because in 1950 it would never have occurred to anyone at all that somehow it meant anything else.
	__________________ Yes, yes. I know you are right. But would it hurt you to provide some information?

13th February 2021, 06:35 PM	#183
cullennz Embarrasingly illiterate Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: NZ Posts: 19,996	Originally Posted by Collin237 I was trying to do the opposite. Which restroom to use had always been a cultural custom. Suddenly some prudes made separation by genitals into an enforceable law. So there was a protest against the intrusion of authority into a private issue. Then everyone forgot what they were fighting for. By what do you mean "always been a cultural custom)" Mind throwing in some years and links to examples?
	__________________ "I mean, you've got the first sort of mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a story-book, man," Biden said. 2007 https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna16911044

13th February 2021, 06:47 PM	#184
Collin237 Muse Join Date: Sep 2015 Posts: 575	Originally Posted by Meadmaker It's as if people were trying to push the narrative that once upon a time, people could use whatever bathroom or locker room they wanted, and then in 2015 or thereabouts, some people in North Carolina tried to push some sort of never before seen legislation onto the world. It's as if you pulled the words "2015" and "North Carolina" right out of my mind. Or rather, you know very well what I'm referring to.
Collin237 Muse Join Date: Sep 2015 Posts: 575	__________________ We hold this truth to be self-evident. All records are created with the same number of bytes.

13th February 2021, 06:52 PM	#185
Collin237 Muse Join Date: Sep 2015 Posts: 575	Originally Posted by cullennz By what do you mean "always been a cultural custom)" Mind throwing in some years and links to examples? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public...6_Security_Act which Meadmaker practically revealed to me. So much for the "find your own sources" shtik.
Collin237 Muse Join Date: Sep 2015 Posts: 575	__________________ We hold this truth to be self-evident. All records are created with the same number of bytes.

13th February 2021, 07:00 PM	#186
cullennz Embarrasingly illiterate Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: NZ Posts: 19,996	Originally Posted by Collin237 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public...6_Security_Act which Meadmaker practically revealed to me. So much for the "find your own sources" shtik. Oh We all live in the US now? Thanks for that revelation.
	__________________ "I mean, you've got the first sort of mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a story-book, man," Biden said. 2007 https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna16911044

13th February 2021, 07:02 PM	#187
cullennz Embarrasingly illiterate Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: NZ Posts: 19,996	Actually no. We apparently all live in Nth Carolina
	__________________ "I mean, you've got the first sort of mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a story-book, man," Biden said. 2007 https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna16911044

13th February 2021, 07:26 PM	#188
Collin237 Muse Join Date: Sep 2015 Posts: 575	Originally Posted by cullennz Actually no. We apparently all live in Nth Carolina We're apparently all in a North Carolina state of mind.
Collin237 Muse Join Date: Sep 2015 Posts: 575	__________________ We hold this truth to be self-evident. All records are created with the same number of bytes.

13th February 2021, 07:31 PM	#189
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 25,514	Originally Posted by cullennz Actually no. We apparently all live in Nth Carolina The point is that ever since people built boys and girls bathrooms, it has always been unacceptable for a boy to go into the girls bathroom, much less locker room. Depending on the exact time, place, and circumstances, a boy in the girls' bathroom (or locker room), would either be beaten to a pulp, subjected to corporal punishment (i.e. in schools), arrested, or some combination of the above. Maybe, if it was too much trouble, they might just be run off the property with the threat of future arrest, i.e. "If you ever show your face around here again I'm calling the cops!" It has never been legal, ever. No one ever bothered to make a specific law stating it because everyone knew it was illegal. If prosecution were desired (i.e. if someone decided "beating to a pulp" was inadequate or inappropriate) they might use some sort of "peeping tom" law, or they would stretch some sort of disturbing the peace or trespassing law to fit the circumstances. One thing is for certain. Nowhere in the United States would anyone have put up with it, and I am pretty sure the same would be true in all of the English speaking world, and pretty much everywhere else, too. In 2015, faced with transgender males (i.e. transwomen) using women's private areas, the state of North Carolina said they didn't like that, and they actually wrote it into law for government owned buildings. Why did they do that? To codify the law that had always existed, but it never occurred to anyone that there was some need to write it down. The laughable part is the claim that somehow North Carolina was introducing some brand new thing that had never been done before. No. They were making sure things stayed as they had always been until very recently. Whether it is a good idea or a bad idea to do what North Carolina did is a secondary issue. The point is that good idea or bad idea, it was not a new idea.
	__________________ Yes, yes. I know you are right. But would it hurt you to provide some information? Last edited by Meadmaker; 13th February 2021 at 07:36 PM.

13th February 2021, 07:48 PM	#190
cullennz Embarrasingly illiterate Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: NZ Posts: 19,996	I think we need to rewind a bit from some place in the US no one actually relates to. https://www.historic-uk.com/CultureU...ts-in-Britain/
	__________________ "I mean, you've got the first sort of mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a story-book, man," Biden said. 2007 https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna16911044

13th February 2021, 08:34 PM	#191
Collin237 Muse Join Date: Sep 2015 Posts: 575	Originally Posted by cullennz I think we need to rewind a bit from some place in the US no one actually relates to. https://www.historic-uk.com/CultureU...ts-in-Britain/ Have the Maori stated an opinion on this issue?
Collin237 Muse Join Date: Sep 2015 Posts: 575	__________________ We hold this truth to be self-evident. All records are created with the same number of bytes.

13th February 2021, 08:37 PM	#192
cullennz Embarrasingly illiterate Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: NZ Posts: 19,996	Originally Posted by Collin237 Have the Maori stated an opinion on this issue? I can't speak for all of us, but we tend to just go with the flow...…..So to speak.
	__________________ "I mean, you've got the first sort of mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a story-book, man," Biden said. 2007 https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna16911044

13th February 2021, 09:17 PM	#193
Collin237 Muse Join Date: Sep 2015 Posts: 575	Originally Posted by Meadmaker Depending on the exact time, place, and circumstances, a boy in the girls' bathroom (or locker room), would either be beaten to a pulp, That would be unconstitutional. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CO...-1992-10-9.pdf
Collin237 Muse Join Date: Sep 2015 Posts: 575	__________________ We hold this truth to be self-evident. All records are created with the same number of bytes.

13th February 2021, 09:22 PM	#194
cullennz Embarrasingly illiterate Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: NZ Posts: 19,996	Originally Posted by Collin237 That would be unconstitutional. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CO...-1992-10-9.pdf Kind of thought I made the point earlier, but just posting US law crap is a bit moot as half the people on the forum don't live there. Hence the "International" part of the url. But realise it may be hard to get your head round. The US is a big influential place and can be a bit insular.
	__________________ "I mean, you've got the first sort of mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a story-book, man," Biden said. 2007 https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna16911044

13th February 2021, 09:37 PM	#195
Collin237 Muse Join Date: Sep 2015 Posts: 575	Originally Posted by cullennz Kind of thought I made the point earlier, but just posting US law crap is a bit moot as half the people on the forum don't live there. Hence the "International" part of the url. But realise it may be hard to get your head round. The US is a big influential place and can be a bit insular. For the half that do, the concept of something unstated being illegal doesn't make sense. We don't have a court of chancery. Every case that doesn't fit the legal formulas is added to them.
Collin237 Muse Join Date: Sep 2015 Posts: 575	__________________ We hold this truth to be self-evident. All records are created with the same number of bytes.