View Single Post
Old 05-13-2019, 01:36 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,628
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
No, this is an absurd exaggeration. Obviously, for example, a statement to the effect that you self-identify as a woman is not sufficient to get you a Pap smear in a gynecologist's office if you don't actually have a vagina or uterus. There is no need to pretend that transwomen are biologically indistinguishable from cis women in all circumstances, and especially not when it's their specific biological characteristics that are under discussion.

However, there is zero need for people using gendered restrooms to "dispute" other people's gender identification. Most people are very uncomfortable using public restrooms designated for a different gender than the one they identify as. So if somebody is using a women's restroom, the overwhelming likelihood is that she identifies as a woman.

The incidence of people who don't identify as women entering women's restrooms for nefarious purposes is, as has already been pointed out, relatively very small. And even if it weren't, "disputing" the gender identification of non-nefarious women because you're worried they don't look feminine enough won't do a damn thing to address that problem.
This is one of the irritating things about this debate - it seems to start from the assumption that one side is or is going to become extremely stupid, and uses that as a baseline. As if we're fundamentally incapable of telling a bad-faith lie when we see one. Or as if it makes any sense to let someone with zero history of HRT take part in women's sports.

Like, this:

And the easiest it is to make such a claim, the most likely it is that such a thing will happen. If for instance the only requirement to enlist in a tennis competition with a big monetary prize is to state "I self-identify as a woman", the likelihood of such a thing happening is rather high IMO.
In order for this scenario to take place, every single person involved would have to take stupid pills, spend a few days beating themselves across the skull with the stupid stick, and finally fall out of the stupid tree, hitting every branch on the way down and cracking their skull open on the roots. If this is the kind of hypothetical you need to reach for to justify your position, there's a problem.

In fact, I remember back in 2014 when this shit was first happening, people were making the same nonsense hypotheticals. "How can you tell if someone is lying if they just go into a women's bathroom and pretend to be a woman?" In fact, this wasn't merely hypothetical - there was a case, I believe in Oregon, where a man went into a women's bathroom and claimed to be transgender to make a political statement. Except, as it turns out, we're not all collectively stupid, and it was clear that he was not, in fact, trans. And at no point did anyone who actually advocated for these laws stand up and say, "hang on, this guy has every right to be here", because, again, we're not all fucking stupid.

In fact, this is fundamentally a problem with anyone trying to "fake it". If you're trying to show that these laws are bad, you have to be unconvincing. You have to obviously present as male. Otherwise, the only point you're making is that the system doesn't work with convincing bad faith, which isn't a very strong point to make. But the people in charge generally aren't completely stupid, so when you show up making no effort to present as female beyond saying "I identify as female" and there's something obviously fishy going on, you're going to get your ass busted, because we're not collectively idiots.

In this exchange I was having, I referred repeatedly to people "indistinguishable from a man". I was thinking of the scenario described in the article the OP linked to, where someone with male genitalia undress in front of women (in fact underage girls, in the article). By "someone they can't tell the gender of", I didn't mean someone whose genitals might be male or female (and requiring an inspection) but someone whose genitals are clearly male, and who claims to be a transwoman.
God dammit Velocity, this is why we don't link right-wing propaganda pieces; someone might fucking believe them. As pointed out upthread, this just ain't true. Like most such stories, almost every aspect of this story is fabricated or misleading - as is pretty typical of right-wing anti-trans smear pieces.