Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 05-10-2019, 11:24 AM
x-ray vision's Avatar
x-ray vision is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: N.J.
Posts: 6,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Do we know that Mary Gregory broke that record because she's a transwoman? No. Instead, you just point to a transwoman doing something significant, and act like that, in and of itself, is proof that transwomen have an advantage. But the evidence just isn't there yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
If transgender status doesn't make any difference, then why aren't there any FtM transgender athletes winning at the same level?
We can also look at male and female records not including trans athletes and see if we can find how non-similar strength difference are. There's a larger pool of records to wade through. Of course, that won't be the proof some are looking for.

Here are links to some raw powerlifting records. The first for men, the second for women.

If we look at the totals (squats, benches and deadlifts combined) we see that women NEVER beat the men at comparable body weight.

https://www.powerliftingwatch.com/records/raw/american

https://www.powerliftingwatch.com/re...women-american

We can look up specific years and women NEVER come close to beating men at totals at comparable body weight, let alone beat them. Is that evidence that Gregory had an advantage as a trans? Hell yeah it is!
  #52  
Old 05-10-2019, 11:25 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
Not the same thing. Same-sex marriage doesn't impact people who aren't involved in it.
Neither does the existence of trans people.

Quote:
Recognizing transwomen as women in all circumstances impact, or at least is alleged to impact cis women wrt to issues that are normally considered legitimate concerns for them, hence harm the many for the exclusive benefit of the few.
Same sex marriage was "alleged" to impact other people, and it didn't. Recognizing the existence of trans people does not impact others any more than SSM.

Quote:
It is currently very widely accepted that women have a right not to share their locker rooms with men, regardless of what you think of it, so there's a need to define who qualifies as either. Defining "I don't want men parading naked in my locker room" as meaning "I don't want people with a dick parading naked in my locker room" or rejecting the idea that someone is allowed to enter the locker room just because he says he should, or saying that 99 women shouldn't feel distressed so that 1 will feel good aren't some absurd and outrageous stances.
People are free to go into, and leave, any locker rooms they want. They can find private locker rooms if that's what they prefer. They can change at home. Or they can go into a stall in the locker room. If someone attacks them, or behaves lewdly around them, then that's against the law and can be prosecuted regardless of gender identity.

If someone feels distress, that's a feeling that people sometimes have. I have little doubt that some white people felt distressed when they first had to share bathrooms and locker rooms with black people. Some probably still do. That's part of life -- sometimes you will feel distress. It's not violating anyone's rights. But preventing trans people from using locker rooms would be violating their rights to accommodation and services. Forcing them to use the wrong locker room would help no one -- the other locker room users are just as likely to be anti-trans bigots as the first.

Quote:
Especially if you consider that if there's no objective reason to feel distressed because a transwoman is present in a locker room, there's in fact no objective reason to feel distressed because a man is present in a locker room, either. The reason why women feel they should be able to avoid such a situation are cultural and subjective, and I doubt that most would be able to clearly enunciate what the issue is exactly, or would agree with each other if they could. "I don't trust people with a dick to enter a women locker room for genuinely innocent reasons, and I have legitimate reasons to feel this way" would be a position enthusiastically supported by yourself if it didn't impact another category you also support.
If you want to argue against segregated-gender locker rooms and bathrooms, feel free. I don't feel strongly that they need to remain, but others might. As long as they exist, trans people should be allowed to use them just like cis people do.

Quote:
Just because you feel that the woman writing the article shouldn't be disturbed if the dick owner exposing his parts self-identify as a woman, and that the risk that a cis man will pretend to self-identify as a woman just so that he'll be able to enter the women locker room is close to inexistant doesn't mean that this woman should feel the same way and analyze the risk the way you do.
Here you go again, deliberately (and hatefully) misgendering. There's no reason at all for it. You're choosing to say this hateful thing, for no reason at all.

Quote:
Definitely. But who made you king (or rather mind controller) to decide that this woman should stop feeling disturbed or threatened by the presence of a naked dick owner in her locker room as soon as this person says "I identify as a woman" and to dismiss her concerns that the real reason why this person is there and says so might be to check up undressed underage girls and expose himself without consequences?
Where did you get the impression that I'm king? I'm asserting my opinion. It's okay to assert one's opinion, even if they disagree. It's okay to criticize other opinions.

I believe lewd behavior should be sanctioned and prosecuted, and this has nothing to do with whether trans people should be allowed to use bathrooms and locker rooms.
  #53  
Old 05-10-2019, 11:27 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,609
Back to the OP: Can you explain why you thought these two questionable groups were representative of either the liberal or conservative movements, Velocity?
  #54  
Old 05-10-2019, 11:33 AM
clairobscur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists are better described as Feminism-Appropriating Reactionary Transphobes. The acronym fits their general demeanor and attitude better, too.
That might be true of this particular group I know nothing about, but stating that all TERFs are reactionaries bankrolled by conservative groups is utterly false.

The debate about trans inclusion among feminist activists isn't anything new, it has been around for as long as I can remember (and I'm not a spring child anymore) and even before, and didn't wait for the alleged funding by conservative groups.

Whether you sincerely believe it to be true or not, this is just baseless accusations to avoid facing the fact that genuine feminists, and in fact especially the most ardent feminists, haven't always been supportive of transpeople rights, and still aren't.
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.

Last edited by clairobscur; 05-10-2019 at 11:37 AM.
  #55  
Old 05-10-2019, 11:33 AM
x-ray vision's Avatar
x-ray vision is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: N.J.
Posts: 6,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
In fact, if you look at the IOC, they'd say the evidence just straight-up doesn't exist; that's why their ruling is what it is. If I were in a charitable mood, I would say that Gregory should have waited the IOC's recommended 2 years on HRT to compete as a woman. But I'm not.
You seem to put a lot of stock in what the IOC claims, so why does it take you being charitable to think Gregory should have waited the two years? How long do you think one should wait when competing in a strength event?
  #56  
Old 05-10-2019, 12:30 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is online now
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
They're a very vocal, very visible, long standing and pretty influential group. When they aren't attacking trans people (and, to a lesser extent voice their sex-negativity , but this bothers few people), their stances receive uncritical support by leftist activists.
Terfs have certainly been around for a while - they're pretty strongly associated with second wave feminism - but visible or influential? I can't speak for what its like in France, but Terfs find it very hard to find a platform in leftist circles in the US, and are almost totally excluded from queer circles. One of the shitbags mentioned in the OP's link says this expressly: they "

Quote:
They're *definitely* not people who pretend to be feminist just to bash trans. They're feminists at the core, and have a long history as feminists, and are only incidentally and secondarily anti-trans.
Feminists don't oppress other women. These people are not feminists.

And you are wildly underestimating how strongly these women are motivated by bigotry against trans people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by one of the founders of WoLF
“I really believe that if we lose this fight as women, we’ve lost everything,” said WoLF founder and midwife Mary Lou Singleton. Miriam Ben-Shalom of Hands Across the Aisle, a lesbian who was discharged from the military because of her sexuality and afterward protested the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, bluntly stated that she wants the T in LGBT “to go away.”
WoLF is a hate group. They exist specifically to advocate for discrimination against transwomen. And they're almost entirely funded by the Heritage Foundation. This isn't a genuine feminist movement. It's astroturf.

Quote:
Their rejection of transsexuals being based primarily on their basic philosophy according to which there's no mental difference altogether between men and women, all observed and/or supposed differences being social constructs and/or the result of women oppression and/or of the pressures of the patriarchal culture, a position that obviously clashes with the stance of transsexuals (being a woman in a male body, etc... which assumes a difference between male and female brain). And also based on the idea that nobody who isn't born a woman can really be a woman, because he won't share the experience of being raised a girl and experiencing male oppression and cultural pressures girls are subjected to since birth.

And also, even though many social activists deny that such a thing exists, due to the presence in their midst of many men haters, who can only see transsexuals as sexually perverted males trying to steal from women the only thing they have ever been allowed to have : being a woman. When they aren't just simply pretending for sexual gratification. They don't hate trans per se, they hate the men they see pretending to be women, infiltrating women movements, stealing women achievements and entering women locker rooms. They don't see trans-women, they see men. Most would deny that transsexualism is even a thing. They're more lenient with trans-men, but they don't really spare them, either. Basically, these are traitors, "passing" as men.
I trying to figure out what part of this is A) something you think I don't already know, and B) is remotely exculpatory? Yes, they're bigots. You have accurately explained the nature of their bigotry. And?

Quote:
They definitely aren't pretending. They have been and still are at the vanguard of all feminist movements, throwing their support at every feminist cause you are yourself supporting (and probably some you aren't). You want to believe that because it would fit nicely in your worldview where feminist activists are nice oppressed people who always fight the good fight against the oppressive male patriarchy, and trans activists nice oppressed people who always fight the good fight against the oppressive cis male culture. And where everybody disputing either group's claims is a hater. So, you'd rather invoke the "no true Scotsman" fallacy and assume that a feminist objecting to some or all of trans people claims isn't a true feminist (or is as rare an an unicorn) than face the reality of the presence in both group of people who have no interest whatsoever in the plight of the other group. Trans people who don't give a shit about the situation of non trans women and about the consequences policies they advocate for would have for them and feminists who don't give a shit about people who aren't born women and/or aren't physically women and about the consequences the policies they advocate for would have for them.
This is like saying, "A racist is someone who treats people like shit because of their race," and having someone well-actually with, "Racists don't think blacks are people at all, so your description of them is incorrect."

Feminists support women's rights. Transwomen are women. Terfs actively work to undercut transwomen's rights. They slander and libel them. They sometime physically attack them. They're bigots, full stop.

Quote:
It's easy to accuse cis straight white males of being haters when they argue against trans-women in women locker rooms, because your world view definitely allows for them to be haters. But it doesn't allow for feminist women to be haters or to be deluded by extremist/fundamentalist beliefs that allow no nuance. So it becomes a problem when those feminists are arguing against the exact same thing, on the basis of longstanding views that you're otherwise supportive of, which can only be solved by denying that such sincerely feminist women exist, or at least are in any way representative or significant. I'm sure you'd have no problem agreeing with such a feminist stating "Given how much women are victimized, it's perfectly normal for a woman to be wary of all men and about their true intents, and to not assume honest intents on their part". But since you also throw your support to the trans cause, and to their claim that their gender identification shouldn't be disputed in any circumstance, you somehow have a problem when a feminist tells you "why should I assume honest intent on the part of a naked dick-waving person in my locker room just because he says "I feel I'm a woman", exactly?" "Why should I have to face such a situation that I find threatening and abusive and can't have a place where I feel safe, not even a place where I go to undress?"
Bigotry is often couched in terms of personal safety. I don't cut an excuse to white feminists who use personal safety as an excuse to discriminate against blacks. Why should I cut cis feminists an excuse when they discriminate against trans people for the same bullshit reason?

Quote:
Being a feminist doesn't mean that one follows every single one of your progressive (or not progressive for that matter) ideas. Feminists won't necessarily stop arguing for the protection of women interests just because you feel they should in such or such circumstances for the benefit of groups they don't belong to. They won't necessarily feel that a situation isn't threatening just because you say that they shouldn't feel this way. They won't necessarily share any of your views that isn't directly related with feminism, and in particular your definition of "woman". Their feminist views (that, once again, you probably wouldn't dispute if they didn't impact a group that you favor) might very well bring them to absolutely oppose your values. They can very well, and very logically, note that their own interests as non trans women are at odds with the interests of trans women.
Treatment of transwomen is, in fact, directly related to the treatment of women. You can dismiss this as a "article of faith" if you want, but then, "women should be treated the same as men," is also an article of faith. And let's be clear, because you muddy the waters on this quite a bit: feminism, radical feminism, and trans-exclusionary radical feminism are not the same thing. I know lots of radical feminists. Several of them are transwomen. None of them are bigots. Radical feminist != Terf. The latter is a small subset of the former, which is itself a small subset of feminism in general.

Quote:
These radical feminists aren't really rare among vocal activists (they're quite rare in the general population, but then again, casual feminists in the general population aren't necessarily very supportive of trans rights, either). It's just that you probably don't question their equally radical statements when they don't impact trans people. Think about it for a minute : why would you assume that one couldn't at the same time be a sincere feminist (like denouncing sexual abuses, or income differences) and being anti-trans? Is there any obvious reason you can see why being supportive of one issue would make you necessarily supportive of the other? And as I already pointed out, there are on top of this reasons why radical feminist ideology will not be accepting of the concepts generally advanced in support of transsexuals.
Where did I say they were insincere about other feminist-related issues? I'm sure they're honest when they complain about the gender pay gap. I'm sure they're honest when they worry about rates of sexual assault. But I know they're not being honest when they slander transwomen, impute sinister motives to them, attack them in public, and ally with the absolute worst elements in society - elements that are adamantly opposed to literally every other part of their agenda - because their hate isn't getting any traction in mainstream liberal circles.

Last edited by Miller; 05-10-2019 at 12:39 PM.
  #57  
Old 05-10-2019, 12:38 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is online now
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
And I’m not sure why people are attacking the recognition of biology as hate.
Terfs go far, far, faaaaar beyond "recognition of biology." "Transwomen aren't women because chromosomes," is a stupid argument, but that's not where Terfs stop. Terfs routinely claim that transwomen are lying about their status for the express purpose of committing sexual assault against women. They view the transgender rights movement as a deliberate Trojan horse, engineered by men as a whole, to undermine and destroy women's equality as a concept. They deliberately conflate support for transgender rights as hostility to the concept of feminism as a whole. They go way beyond, "We have a difference of definition," and into actively lying about the actions and motives of a small and heavily disadvantaged minority.

They're bigots, by absolutely any measure.
  #58  
Old 05-10-2019, 12:43 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is online now
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,392
The disparity between the treatment, by terfs, of transwomen and transmen is also illustrative. A transwoman is a man who is dishonestly pretending to be a woman for nefarious purposes. A transman, on the other hand, is a poor woman who has been tricked and brainwashed by the patriarchal transgender rights movement into denying her real identity and mutilating their bodies. The existence of transmen is used as more evidence of perfidy of transwomen - another example of men oppressing women.

Unsurprisingly, transmen don't have much more love for Terfs than transwomen.
  #59  
Old 05-10-2019, 12:55 PM
clairobscur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Neither does the existence of trans people.

Same sex marriage was "alleged" to impact other people, and it didn't. Recognizing the existence of trans people does not impact others any more than SSM.
Nobody is arguing here that trans people don't exist. People are arguing that being trans doesn't necessarily allow you to be considered a woman in all circumstances.

Quote:
People are free to go into, and leave, any locker rooms they want. They can find private locker rooms if that's what they prefer. They can change at home. Or they can go into a stall in the locker room. If someone attacks them, or behaves lewdly around them, then that's against the law and can be prosecuted regardless of gender identity.
As far as I'm concerned, the problem would be nicely solved by making all locker rooms and such unisex and saying to whoever is unhappy about it to go pound sand. But society at large, including both conservatives and progressives, agrees that women have a right to and even a need for unisex locker rooms. Hence the need to decide who is a woman and who isn't.

Quote:
If someone feels distress, that's a feeling that people sometimes have. I have little doubt that some white people felt distressed when they first had to share bathrooms and locker rooms with black people. Some probably still do. That's part of life -- sometimes you will feel distress. It's not violating anyone's rights. But preventing trans people from using locker rooms would be violating their rights to accommodation and services. Forcing them to use the wrong locker room would help no one -- the other locker room users are just as likely to be anti-trans bigots as the first.
And this statement equally applies to transwomen. Feeling distressed because you're refused access to women locker rooms is also part of life. Plenty of people are unhappy because they can't, for any number of reasons, do something they would really want to do, like participating in a sporting event. Cis women unhappy about or feeling threatened by sharing locker rooms with preop transwomen can perfectly change at home. Transwomen unhappy about or feeling threatened by not being allowed into women locker rooms can also change at home. You have decided that the concerns of transwomen absolutely trump the generally accepted concerns of cis women, but you stating so doesn't make it objectively true. Especially since, once again, it amounts to state that the subjective distress/fear/whatever of the few trumps the equally subjective distress/fear/whatever of the many.

If you accept that the concern of women wrt men entering locker rooms is legitimate, how can you decide for them what exactly they perceive as a problem and who exactly they perceive as a man? If I enter a women locker room and begin to undress, how is this woman supposed to determine whether or not I actually feel I'm a woman? Why wouldn't this be a valid concern? I in fact suspect that you would even reject the idea that she has any right to question my presence there, like saying "what the fuck are you doing here?" and expect an answer. At which point any man can indeed enter the women locker room and check up the undressed underage girl, as the author of the article fears.



Quote:
Here you go again, deliberately (and hatefully) misgendering. There's no reason at all for it. You're choosing to say this hateful thing, for no reason at all.
So, I should use "she" even when discussing the case of a man pretending to be a woman in order to enter the women locker room? A person claiming to self-identify as a woman should still be called "she" even if the claim is false and advanced for nefarious reasons?

Or is that accusation a way to distract attention and avoid to answer the question of why the woman should be disturbed only by what you feel she should be disturbed by, and accept your assessment of the risks rather than her own?



Quote:
I believe lewd behavior should be sanctioned and prosecuted, and this has nothing to do with whether trans people should be allowed to use bathrooms and locker rooms.
But even if we assume so, how would you even define who can be legitimately be considered a trans person? Why would you assume that anybody self-identifying as a woman would do so, not only sincerely, but for clear, real, serious, lasting reasons? Why would a somewhat genderfluid person, for instance, who feels rather womanish today be prevented from using the women locker room? What about a transvestite who wants to feel more like a woman today? What about a man who wants to have a "woman experience"? On what basis could the line be drawn? And how anybody could determine that a specific person claim falls on this side of the line or on the other?

Once again, if you want women only locker rooms, you need a definition, and I don't see how where you personally, or that transwoman in particular, want to draw the line is anymore valid than any other. I dont see why "I don't want anyone with a dick" is anymore or any less valid than "I don't want anyone who feels he's a man", especially since while the first can be determined by an observer, the second can't.
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.

Last edited by clairobscur; 05-10-2019 at 12:57 PM.
  #60  
Old 05-10-2019, 01:02 PM
clairobscur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
They go way beyond, "We have a difference of definition," and into actively lying about the actions and motives of a small and heavily disadvantaged minority.
I don't think they're actively lying. I think they sincerely believe it to be true.
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.
  #61  
Old 05-10-2019, 01:05 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is online now
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
Nobody is arguing here that trans people don't exist.
Terfs absolutely argue that trans people don't exist - they separate everyone who identifies as trans into two groups: men who are trying to infiltrate women only spaces with sinister intentions, and women who have been brainwashed into hating their own gender so effectively that they pretend to be men.
  #62  
Old 05-10-2019, 01:06 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
Nobody is arguing here that trans people don't exist. People are arguing that being trans doesn't necessarily allow you to be considered a woman in all circumstances.
I don't care what people are "considered" -- I care how people are treated. You haven't offered any good reason why trans people should be treated poorly, as you appear to be advocating should be allowed.

Quote:
As far as I'm concerned, the problem would be nicely solved by making all locker rooms and such unisex and saying to whoever is unhappy about it to go pound sand. But society at large, including both conservatives and progressives, agrees that women have a right to and even a need for unisex locker rooms. Hence the need to decide who is a woman and who isn't.
I don't care about what strangers are thinking, I care about what they're doing. I also don't care if locker rooms are unisex. I think trans people should be allowed to use locker rooms and bathrooms. You appear to be advocating that they shouldn't. If you're advocating that trans people should use the wrong locker rooms, why? Who does that help? There are anti-trans bigots that use both locker rooms. Why does one group of anti-trans bigots get their preference, but not the other one? Why are trans people the ones who should be forced by law to feel distress?

Quote:
And this statement equally applies to transwomen. Feeling distressed because you're refused access to women locker rooms is also part of life. Plenty of people are unhappy because they can't, for any number of reasons, do something they would really want to do, like participating in a sporting event. Cis women unhappy about or feeling threatened by sharing locker rooms with preop transwomen can perfectly change at home. Transwomen unhappy about or feeling threatened by not being allowed into women locker rooms can also change at home. You have decided that the concerns of transwomen absolutely trump the generally accepted concerns of cis women, but you stating so doesn't make it objectively true. Especially since, once again, it amounts to state that the subjective distress/fear/whatever of the few trumps the equally subjective distress/fear/whatever of the many.
I've decided that trans people should be allowed to use locker rooms and bathrooms. That's pretty much all I've decided. You appear to disagree.

Quote:
If you accept that the concern of women wrt men entering locker rooms is legitimate, how can you decide for them what exactly they perceive as a problem and who exactly they perceive as a man? If I enter a women locker room and begin to undress, how is this woman supposed to determine whether or not I actually feel I'm a woman? Why wouldn't this be a valid concern? I in fact suspect that you would even reject the idea that she has any right to question my presence there, like saying "what the fuck are you doing here?" and expect an answer. At which point any man can indeed enter the women locker room and check up the undressed underage girl, as the author of the article fears.
Anyone can ask any questions they like, even with vulgarity. Using vulgarity isn't against the law.

And men can already enter women's locker rooms, physically speaking. The only thing that stops this is societal disapproval and sanction. Nothing would change if trans people are allowed (as they mostly are) to use locker rooms. Liars and perverts will be liars and perverts, as they always have. There's no new risk by allowing trans people to use locker rooms. Pervs can and do still sneak into locker rooms, plant cameras, and other illegal pervy bullshit.

This supposed fear of pervy men is entirely fictional -- pervy men have always existed, and always will. Allowing trans people to use bathrooms and locker rooms doesn't change this at all.

Quote:
But even if we assume so, how would you even define who can be legitimately be considered a trans person? Why would you assume that anybody self-identifying as a woman would do so, not only sincerely, but for clear, real, serious, lasting reasons? Why would a somewhat genderfluid person, for instance, who feels rather womanish today be prevented from using the women locker room? What about a transvestite who wants to feel more like a woman today? What about a man who wants to have a "woman experience"? On what basis could the line be drawn? And how anybody could determine that a specific person claim falls on this side of the line or on the other?
All of this is already possible, and there aren't terrible things happening. I could put on a dress and shave and walk into a woman's bathroom or locker room, and in all likelihood nothing would happen. I don't do this because I have no desire to, but if I did, it wouldn't matter if trans people are or are not allowed to use locker rooms and bathrooms.

Seriously. If there was going to be some plague of pervy men pretending to be women, it would have already happened. This has always been possible. It's always been societal sanction/taboo/custom that has kept people going into the "right" bathrooms and locker rooms. Nothing would change by allowing trans people to also use locker rooms and bathrooms.

Quote:
Once again, if you want women only locker rooms, you need a definition, and I don't see how where you personally, or that transwoman in particular, want to draw the line is anymore valid than any other. I dont see why "I don't want anyone with a dick" is anymore or any less valid than "I don't want anyone who feels he's a man", especially since while the first can be determined by an observer, the second can't.
No, we don't need such a definition, because society pretty much sorts this sort of thing out as it always has. There's no crisis here. People tend to use the bathrooms that match their gender identity, and only very rarely do perverts act pervy. And when they do, it's because they're criminal perverts, not because of some rule or lack thereof about trans people.
  #63  
Old 05-10-2019, 01:07 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,584
The idea that allowing trans people to use locker rooms will lead to an outbreak of perversion has been proven false by the fact that trans people have been using locker rooms for years (probably decades in some places) without such an outbreak of perversion and lewd assaults. There's nothing to fear here except for those who hate trans people.
  #64  
Old 05-10-2019, 01:11 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,584
Forcing transwomen to use men's locker rooms has lead to assault and death for transwomen. Allowing transwomen to use women's locker rooms might have a chance of leading to some feelings of distress for some anti-trans bigots. One of those things seems like something that it's reasonable to worry about; the other does not.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 05-10-2019 at 01:12 PM.
  #65  
Old 05-10-2019, 01:11 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is online now
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
I don't think they're actively lying. I think they sincerely believe it to be true.
Some of what they say about transpeople, they undoubtedly believe, much the way Nazis legitimately believed that Jews were undermining German society. Some of what they say about transpeople is deliberately crafted falsehoods intended to bolster their arguments. I've seen Terfs directly target transpeople I know with accusations I knew for a fact to be false.
  #66  
Old 05-10-2019, 02:19 PM
Unreconstructed Man is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 345
Quote:
This supposed fear of pervy men is entirely fictional -- pervy men have always existed, and always will. Allowing trans people to use bathrooms and locker rooms doesn't change this at all.
It’s not entirely fictional. There have already been cases of trans-women (or men who say that they’re women, depending on your point of view) being given access to female spaces and committing sexual assaults that absolutely wouldn’t have occurred if they hadn’t been granted access to those spaces.
  #67  
Old 05-10-2019, 02:28 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
It’s not entirely fictional. There have already been cases of trans-women (or men who say that they’re women, depending on your point of view) being given access to female spaces and committing sexual assaults that absolutely wouldn’t have occurred if they hadn’t been granted access to those spaces.
Sure it could have occurred. A dishonest perv can pretend to be a transwoman, or a transman (or a ciswoman or cisman, for that matter), to gain access to their preferred targets, depending on the "rules". This doesn't change because transwomen are allowed to use locker rooms. Liars will lie, and pervs will perv, whatever the rules.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #68  
Old 05-10-2019, 02:30 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,245
I think the "alike" in the OP is the problematic part. It's opposed by a large section of conservatives and a very narrow slice of radical anti-trans feminists.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #69  
Old 05-10-2019, 02:31 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,609
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
It’s not entirely fictional. There have already been cases of trans-women (or men who say that they’re women, depending on your point of view) being given access to female spaces and committing sexual assaults that absolutely wouldn’t have occurred if they hadn’t been granted access to those spaces.
For instance...?
  #70  
Old 05-10-2019, 02:38 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
It’s not entirely fictional. There have already been cases of trans-women (or men who say that they’re women, depending on your point of view) being given access to female spaces and committing sexual assaults that absolutely wouldn’t have occurred if they hadn’t been granted access to those spaces.
Do you have any cites for these cases?
  #71  
Old 05-10-2019, 02:40 PM
Unreconstructed Man is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
For instance...?
Transgender prisoner who sexually assaulted inmates jailed for life.

From the article:

”Prosecutor Chris Dunn described White as an “alleged transgender female” who has used her “transgender persona to put herself in contact with vulnerable persons” whom she could then abuse.”
  #72  
Old 05-10-2019, 02:56 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
Nevermind. I suppose a women's prison would be the female space.

Last edited by manson1972; 05-10-2019 at 02:58 PM.
  #73  
Old 05-10-2019, 03:01 PM
Unreconstructed Man is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 345
Deleted.

Last edited by Unreconstructed Man; 05-10-2019 at 03:04 PM. Reason: Posted before seeing the edit to the above post.
  #74  
Old 05-10-2019, 03:17 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by x-ray vision View Post
Sure it is. Do transwomen become shorter? Do their hearts shrink? Hands? Does their pelvis change? The male pelvis is more narrow making their legs to be more vertical aiding in speed. The male pelvis is better suited for childbirth. Does muscle memory forget? That's a real thing:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4933662/

Has the IOC changed the levels of testosterone they allowed in 2015? A professor in physiology says the limit allowed in 2015 isn't fair:



https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/other-...peed-and-power

Do hemoglobin levels become equal? If not, that would be a huge advantage. Whatever does change to equal, a complete reformatting of the body doesn't happen.
Okay. So there's the theory. You can list a non-trivial number of reasons why transwomen might have a competitive advantage over women.

So given this, would we expect to see:
- a disproportionally high number of transwomen in high-level pro sports?
- a proportionally high number of transwomen in high-level pro sports?
- a disproportionally low number of transwomen in high-level pro sports?

Because in practice, it's that last one. Despite what Shodan wrongly asserts about FtM athletes (and seriously how hard is it to google before you say something so wrong), the first out transgendered olympic athlete was Chris Mosier - a FtM transman. Meanwhile, the number of out transwomen is still... zero.

Transwomen occasionally see a modicum of success (Gregory is the first new case to make the rounds in TERF circles since, what, Laurel Hubbard two years ago?), which one would expect given that there are millions of them. And every time that happens, without fail, someone tries to take that individual success as proof that transwomen have an unfair advantage. And the evidence just isn't there. We know there are tons of advantages men have... But we also know that HRT leads to many massive changes in physiology, and we also know that post-HRT transwomen are not disproportionately represented in high-level sports.

There's this concept in the smash community - "theorycrafting". Trying to figure out how a matchup would work just by looking at the individual tools the characters have. That's sort of what you're doing here - "Oh, look at factor X, Y, Z, transwomen should have an advantage over ciswomen". The thing about theorycrafting is that it's notoriously unreliable, to the point where someone arguing, "Well, in theory the matchup should work well for character X" when actual results show character X getting consistently beaten gets laughed out of the room.

I have no idea if Mary Gregory has an unfair advantage over the other women participating. But I don't think you do either. And if she does, I'm not sure it's any different from any possible "unfair advantages" that, say, Kate Ledecky has, and nobody's trying to take away her medals.
  #75  
Old 05-10-2019, 03:22 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is online now
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
It’s not entirely fictional. There have already been cases of trans-women (or men who say that they’re women, depending on your point of view) being given access to female spaces and committing sexual assaults that absolutely wouldn’t have occurred if they hadn’t been granted access to those spaces.
And how does that compare to sexual assaults against trans prisoners who are housed in men's populations?

For that matter, how does that compare with sexual assaults against women, committed by cis-gendered female inmates?
  #76  
Old 05-10-2019, 03:30 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
It’s not entirely fictional. There have already been cases of trans-women (or men who say that they’re women, depending on your point of view) being given access to female spaces and committing sexual assaults that absolutely wouldn’t have occurred if they hadn’t been granted access to those spaces.
Sure. Just like there are lesbians who have raped other women. But... we don't force them into men's prisons, and we don't demand they stop using women-only spaces. And we definitely don't use that as a reason to discriminate against all lesbians...

...I mean, we don't anymore. Exactly these arguments were used in the 70s to argue that lesbians shouldn't be allowed in women's spaces because they were dangerous. They're based on the exact same bullshit assumptions, the exact same discriminatory rhetoric.

The question, as usual, has to be taken in terms of population averages. Are transwomen, on average, more or less dangerous? Individual cases don't help us here. The case of Karen White is tragic for her victims, but tells us about as much about how safe transwomen are in women's spaces as this article tells us about how safe lesbians are in women's spaces.

Christ, no wonder Una doesn't post here any more.
  #77  
Old 05-10-2019, 03:37 PM
Unreconstructed Man is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet
I have no idea if Mary Gregory has an unfair advantage over the other women participating. But I don't think you do either. And if she does, I'm not sure it's any different from any possible "unfair advantages" that, say, Kate Ledecky has, and nobody's trying to take away her medals.
Are there any examples of FtM athletes who sucked against men and who sucked equally hard against women after they transitioned? Admittedly, I’ve not looked into this, but common sense tells me that if hormones remove any innate male advantages than a FtM tennis player who was ranked, say, 1,000th in the world against men should, after transitioning, rank around about 1,000th against women, too.

The trouble is we only ever hear about FtM athletes when they make the news after utterly obliterating the women they’re competing against. Are there any examples of terrible male athletes becoming equally terrible female athletes?
  #78  
Old 05-10-2019, 03:41 PM
Unreconstructed Man is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
And how does that compare to sexual assaults against trans prisoners who are housed in men's populations?

For that matter, how does that compare with sexual assaults against women, committed by cis-gendered female inmates?
What does that have to do with my point? iiandyiiii said the fear expressed by many women that allowing self-certified trans people into their spaces will increase their chances of being assaulted was “entirely fictional”. My point was that it’s [i]not/i] entirely fictional, as my example showed.
  #79  
Old 05-10-2019, 03:45 PM
clairobscur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
Terfs have certainly been around for a while - they're pretty strongly associated with second wave feminism - but visible or influential? I can't speak for what its like in France, but Terfs find it very hard to find a platform in leftist circles in the US, and are almost totally excluded from queer circles. One of the shitbags mentioned in the OP's link says this expressly:
They don't necessarily spend a lot of their time arguing about transgendered people. They don't necessarily write their stance wrt this issue on the front page of their websites. They don't necessarily start a conversation by exposing these views. Their perception of transwomen ins't necessarily a central issue for them. What I'm saying is that many are visible and influential as feminists and women right activists, not as TE, and while their views with regard to women issues and gender relationships is based on the exact same prejudices, falsehoods and dogmas as their views wrt trans people but they are only ever called to task for the latter, while being listened to for the former.


Quote:
Feminists don't oppress other women. These people are not feminists.
This is entirely a true Scotsman fallacy. Someone agitating for women rights doesn't have to share all of your views about those rights or anything else for that matter.

On top of which, feminists who feel that they're entitled to decide what other women should do aren't by far limited to TERF or even RadFem in general. Feminists who think that they know better than sex workers or BDSM practitioners what sex workers and BDSM practitioners should do with their life or in their bedroom are commonplace. If you were to deny to all of them the name "femisnist", then you'd reduce a lot the number of feminists, including some whose actions have undeniably improved the situation of women in general.


Quote:
And you are wildly underestimating how strongly these women are motivated by bigotry against trans people.
No, I don't think so. The bigotry is evident, but I think it's for a large part the result and the consequence of their bigotry and hatred towards men, whose existence in the feminist movement is actively denied by many on the left arguing that there can't be such a thing as reverse sexism. Transwomen are only the fifth column of their real enemy, and they aren't treated any worse or with anymore prejudice than men are. I'm yet to see (in real life mostly long ago or on the web nowadays) any TE feminist who isn't filled with prejudice against men too, and in fact primarily.

When for instance they make their best to demonstrate that there's no such thing as men victims of domestic abuse and it's just a big conspiracy by the MRA, they use the same arguments, the same types of falsehoods and rely on the same dogmas they use to demonstrate that there's no such thing as transwomen and it's also just a big conspiracy by men, but their motivations and methods in the first case aren't questioned or even are uncritically accepted by the same people who immediately perceive the prejudice in the second case.

Quote:
WoLF is a hate group. They exist specifically to advocate for discrimination against transwomen. And they're almost entirely funded by the Heritage Foundation. This isn't a genuine feminist movement. It's astroturf.
I know nothing about this specific group.


Quote:
I trying to figure out what part of this is A) something you think I don't already know, and B) is remotely exculpatory? Yes, they're bigots. You have accurately explained the nature of their bigotry. And?
If it was you I was responding to originally, then yes I assumed you didn't know these things, not, on the other hand, that they were exculpatory.

I assumed it because I didn't think that someone familiar with radical feminism and TERFs would believe or state that they aren't genuine feminists with a genuine concern for women rights. A bit like, say, I would have assumed that someone stating that communists don't belong to the left and aren't genuinely concerned with the well being of the workers, but just pretend to be in order to impose a dictatorship doesn't know anything about communists. And I still think that your view about TERFs not being feminists is a Scotsman fallacy.

Quote:
This is like saying, "A racist is someone who treats people like shit because of their race," and having someone well-actually with, "Racists don't think blacks are people at all, so your description of them is incorrect."
Which still would be true and important to know.

Which makes me think that I forgot to mention earlier wrt your comment about me underestimating their bigotry that I think you might be underestimating the importance of theoretical constructs and political dogma in the views they develop. I couldn't tell with certainty whether the prejudice precedes the dogma or the other way around, but IME Radfem are extraordinarily heavy on theoretical concepts, at the expense of pragmatism. They tend to be convinced that they own the truth about life, the universe and all the rest, and, like most political extremists, that anything contradicting their dogma isn't just wrong but presumably an attack of the forces of evil on all that is good and sacred.

As such, I think that an assumption that bigotry in the abstract can alone explain their stance is mistaken. They don't have an issue with transwomen solely (maybe not even primarily) because they randomly dislike transwomen but also because they dare to contradict the dogma, according to which they shouldn't exist. And they give them the only place that the dogma allows : male infiltrators.


Quote:
Feminists support women's rights. Transwomen are women. Terfs actively work to undercut transwomen's rights. They slander and libel them. They sometime physically attack them. They're bigots, full stop.
Once again : Scotsman's fallacy. There's nothing saying that you can't be a feminist and a bigot.

And same response as usual with regard to "transwomen are women". You don't get to decide that the only valid definition of "woman" is "gender self-identification".

As I wrote above in response to another post, this is no different from saying that race is solely determined by self-identification and that anybody identifying as black should be welcomed in the the black community regardless of both physical appearance and life experience. It might be very inclusive of you to think so, but some people are going to disagree with this view, and not just out of hatred.

Quote:
Bigotry is often couched in terms of personal safety. I don't cut an excuse to white feminists who use personal safety as an excuse to discriminate against blacks. Why should I cut cis feminists an excuse when they discriminate against trans people for the same bullshit reason?
The question would be : can women legitimately exclude people in general from places, activities, etc...on the basis of their personal safety? If so, what is the legitimate reason that allows them to refuse the presence of men, *exactly* ?
Because whether or not transwomen can be excluded depends on the responses to these questions.

For instance is there's a legitimate and serious concern that allowing a man in is dangerous, then it is legitimate to want to exclude someone who cannot be distinguished from a man. On the other hand, if the danger presented by men isn't a legitimate concern, then there simply shouldn't be women-only rooms. And besides, the idea that, assuming that men are inherently dangerous and women inherently not dangerous (so making excluding men a legitimate concern), transwomen would be not dangerous because they're women rests on the idea that the mental makeup of a transwoman is exactly identical to the mental makeup of a cis woman, an idea that, despite being promoted, is unproven. If only because nobody knows what is the difference, mentally, and if any, between a man and a woman.

So, no, I have difficulties envisioning a situation where there would be a legitimate safety concern justifying the exclusion of men that wouldn't also make the inclusion of transwomen at least open to debate. Same, basically with sports. I can't see a reason for the existence of separate women sports that wouldn't also make the inclusion of transwomen at least open to debate.


Quote:
Treatment of transwomen is, in fact, directly related to the treatment of women. You can dismiss this as a "article of faith" if you want, but then, "women should be treated the same as men," is also an article of faith. And let's be clear, because you muddy the waters on this quite a bit: feminism, radical feminism, and trans-exclusionary radical feminism are not the same thing. I know lots of radical feminists. Several of them are transwomen. None of them are bigots. Radical feminist != Terf. The latter is a small subset of the former, which is itself a small subset of feminism in general.
True, not all RadFem are TERFs. But TERFs base their views on the same assumptions RadFems use. And in my view they're a bit like believers having two different interpretations of the scriptures. One group pushes the interpretation a bit further and as a result makes pronouncements the other group isn't comfortable with. But in the end they both believe in the same revealed truth, which is sufficiently flawed that it's no surprise that it leads the first group to these interpretations. Basically, I think that non TERF RadFems claims and reasonings generally aren't any more valid than, and exactly as faulty as, TERF claims and reasonings even if they disagree on the specific issue of transpeople.

In other words, I see TERFs as the natural children of radical feminism, and, to paraphrase the famous Game of Thrones sentence : "If you're surprised that TERF would be born from radical feminism, you haven't been paying attention".



Quote:
Where did I say they were insincere about other feminist-related issues? I'm sure they're honest when they complain about the gender pay gap.
Well, even though I don't remember the exact wording of your post, you implied that they weren't feminists, which in mind meant that you thought they didn't really care about women issues, and were only using them as an excuse for trans-bashing.
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.
  #80  
Old 05-10-2019, 03:53 PM
Unreconstructed Man is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Sure it could have occurred. A dishonest perv can pretend to be a transwoman, or a transman (or a ciswoman or cisman, for that matter), to gain access to their preferred targets, depending on the "rules". This doesn't change because transwomen are allowed to use locker rooms. Liars will lie, and pervs will perv, whatever the rules.
This discussion isn’t just about locker rooms. It’s about all female spaces. The strategy you describe will only work in a society which makes it easy for people to self-certify their own gender. Which is why women who (perhaps due to past experiences with men) only feel safe in female spaces can be concerned about the prospect of anatomical males whose predilections they don’t know being granted access to those spaces simply because they’ve declared themselves to be women.

Last edited by Unreconstructed Man; 05-10-2019 at 03:53 PM.
  #81  
Old 05-10-2019, 03:55 PM
Unreconstructed Man is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet
...I mean, we don't anymore. Exactly these arguments were used in the 70s to argue that lesbians shouldn't be allowed in women's spaces because they were dangerous. They're based on the exact same bullshit assumptions, the exact same discriminatory rhetoric
Cite that anyone anywhere has ever had that discussion.
  #82  
Old 05-10-2019, 03:58 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,609
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
Cite that anyone anywhere has ever had that discussion.
Since this board wasn't around back in the 70's, that would be quite a trick.
  #83  
Old 05-10-2019, 04:07 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,416
When cisgender female athletes complain about the physical advantage of trans athletes, the response to them seems to be......"Deal with it."
  #84  
Old 05-10-2019, 04:07 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is online now
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
They don't necessarily spend a lot of their time arguing about transgendered people. They don't necessarily write their stance wrt this issue on the front page of their websites.
The front page for the Women's Liberation Front currently has two anti-trans stories on the front of their website.

Quote:
This is entirely a true Scotsman fallacy. Someone agitating for women rights doesn't have to share all of your views about those rights or anything else for that matter.
They do if they want me to consider them feminist. If shitbags like the women you're so ardently defending can unilaterally declare that someone else isn't a woman, I get to do the exact same thing when they try to call themselves feminist.

Quote:
On top of which, feminists who feel that they're entitled to decide what other women should do...
...is not related to anything I've said in this thread.

Quote:
No, I don't think so. The bigotry is evident, but I think it's for a large part the result and the consequence of their bigotry and hatred towards men, whose existence in the feminist movement is actively denied by many on the left arguing that there can't be such a thing as reverse sexism. Transwomen are only the fifth column of their real enemy, and they aren't treated any worse or with anymore prejudice than men are. I'm yet to see (in real life mostly long ago or on the web nowadays) any TE feminist who isn't filled with prejudice against men too, and in fact primarily.
Yeah, I agree, Terfs are also usually deeply prejudiced against men.

So what?

Quote:
I know nothing about this specific group.
Maybe you should read the OP before contributing to this thread, then? They're specifically one of the two groups described in the article she linked to.
  #85  
Old 05-10-2019, 04:27 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,992
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Okay. So there's the theory. You can list a non-trivial number of reasons why transwomen might have a competitive advantage over women.

So given this, would we expect to see:
- a disproportionally high number of transwomen in high-level pro sports?
- a proportionally high number of transwomen in high-level pro sports?
- a disproportionally low number of transwomen in high-level pro sports?

Because in practice, it's that last one. Despite what Shodan wrongly asserts about FtM athletes (and seriously how hard is it to google before you say something so wrong), the first out transgendered olympic athlete was Chris Mosier - a FtM transman. Meanwhile, the number of out transwomen is still... zero.

Transwomen occasionally see a modicum of success (Gregory is the first new case to make the rounds in TERF circles since, what, Laurel Hubbard two years ago?), which one would expect given that there are millions of them. And every time that happens, without fail, someone tries to take that individual success as proof that transwomen have an unfair advantage. And the evidence just isn't there. We know there are tons of advantages men have... But we also know that HRT leads to many massive changes in physiology, and we also know that post-HRT transwomen are not disproportionately represented in high-level sports.

There's this concept in the smash community - "theorycrafting". Trying to figure out how a matchup would work just by looking at the individual tools the characters have. That's sort of what you're doing here - "Oh, look at factor X, Y, Z, transwomen should have an advantage over ciswomen". The thing about theorycrafting is that it's notoriously unreliable, to the point where someone arguing, "Well, in theory the matchup should work well for character X" when actual results show character X getting consistently beaten gets laughed out of the room.

I have no idea if Mary Gregory has an unfair advantage over the other women participating. But I don't think you do either. And if she does, I'm not sure it's any different from any possible "unfair advantages" that, say, Kate Ledecky has, and nobody's trying to take away her medals.
C’mon now. There are folks running in high school girls’ races that have a demonstrated advantage. Is that fair? Should sport just abolish so-called ‘gender’ categories? I am beginning to think that’s what we should do.
  #86  
Old 05-10-2019, 04:36 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
What does that have to do with my point? iiandyiiii said the fear expressed by many women that allowing self-certified trans people into their spaces will increase their chances of being assaulted was “entirely fictional”. My point was that it’s [i]not/i] entirely fictional, as my example showed.
Yes, it's fictional. Predators will predate. Pervs will perv. Liars will lie. Recognizing that trans people exist and should be treated like humans doesn't change any of that. A predator will put themselves in position to hurt people -- treating trans people like human beings doesn't make this more likely.
  #87  
Old 05-10-2019, 04:39 PM
Unreconstructed Man is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Yes, it's fictional. Predators will predate. Pervs will perv. Liars will lie. Recognizing that trans people exist and should be treated like humans doesn't change any of that. A predator will put themselves in position to hurt people -- treating trans people like human beings doesn't make this more likely.
On what basis do you deny that the woman in the article I linked to is, in fact, a woman?
  #88  
Old 05-10-2019, 04:40 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
This discussion isn’t just about locker rooms. It’s about all female spaces. The strategy you describe will only work in a society which makes it easy for people to self-certify their own gender. Which is why women who (perhaps due to past experiences with men) only feel safe in female spaces can be concerned about the prospect of anatomical males whose predilections they don’t know being granted access to those spaces simply because they’ve declared themselves to be women.
The strategy I describe already works. I've known assholes who have done such disgusting things, and generally gotten away with it, because most people don't pay much attention to who else is in the bathroom. Most people aren't worried about who's in the next stall. It's always been possible and always will be, and its frequency doesn't depend on whether we treat trans people like human beings.

Most people go to the bathroom, do their business, and get out. A few pervs find ways to do pervy things in bathrooms -- by wearing a disguise, pretending to be the janitor, just going in feigning confidence, or whatever. Treating trans people with dignity and respect doesn't change any of this.
  #89  
Old 05-10-2019, 04:41 PM
x-ray vision's Avatar
x-ray vision is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: N.J.
Posts: 6,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Okay. So there's the theory. You can list a non-trivial number of reasons why transwomen might have a competitive advantage over women.

...

And every time that happens, without fail, someone tries to take that individual success as proof that transwomen have an unfair advantage. And the evidence just isn't there.
Might. Sure. I posted more than a theory. You asked for evidence and I provided it. It's strong evidence, at that. But to you it's just not there.


Quote:
We know there are tons of advantages men have... But we also know that HRT leads to many massive changes in physiology
We also know that it fails to lead to massive changes in physiology that make a difference in athletics. You're smart enough to see it, you either choose not to or hate to admit it.


Quote:
I have no idea if Mary Gregory has an unfair advantage over the other women participating.
Sure you don't. You have no idea if someone that lived into his 40s and began weight training while a man has and transitioned to a woman has an advantage in a sport consisting mostly of pure strength has an advantage over other women. I have a hard time believing that you have no idea.


You didn't respond to this:

Quote:
You seem to put a lot of stock in what the IOC claims, so why does it take you being charitable to think Gregory should have waited the two years? How long do you think one should wait when competing in a strength event?
  #90  
Old 05-10-2019, 04:41 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
On what basis do you deny that the woman in the article I linked to is, in fact, a woman?
I didn't say anything of the sort. Their gender is irrelevant -- that they allegedly assaulted people is very bad, but treating trans people like humans doesn't make assault more likely. The problem in that case, apparently, was putting a predator in a position, without proper supervision/oversight, in which they could get away with doing terrible things. That has nothing to do with gender identity, and probably plenty to do with the serious problems in our corrections system.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 05-10-2019 at 04:44 PM.
  #91  
Old 05-10-2019, 04:42 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
What does that have to do with my point? iiandyiiii said the fear expressed by many women that allowing self-certified trans people into their spaces will increase their chances of being assaulted was “entirely fictional”. My point was that it’s not entirely fictional, as my example showed.
(Bolding mine)

Citing one individual rapist does nothing to show this. If transwomen are less likely than ciswomen to commit sexual assault, then this individual rapist does not make your argument. Stop looking at individual outliers, look for actual data.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
Cite that anyone anywhere has ever had that discussion.
Really? Were you like... asleep during all of the 2000s? Actually finding the headlines in question is quite difficult, but I guarantee I'm not the only one who's seen or heard of people being threatened by gay people in gendered locker rooms. Seriously. Like, Miller, you were awake at some point between Stonewall and now, right?

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 05-10-2019 at 04:43 PM.
  #92  
Old 05-10-2019, 04:55 PM
clairobscur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
...is not related to anything I've said in this thread.
Really?You mentioned women oppressing other women. Obviously we disagree about what qualifies, because I would definitely have put dictating other women how they should live their lives and what they should do or not in their own bedroom, and supporting laws to this effect, as an obvious instance of it.
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.
  #93  
Old 05-10-2019, 04:56 PM
Unreconstructed Man is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet
Really? Were you like... asleep during all of the 2000s? Actually finding the headlines in question is quite difficult, but I guarantee I'm not the only one who's seen or heard of people being threatened by gay people in gendered locker rooms. Seriously. Like, Miller, you were awake at some point between Stonewall and now, right?
I’m open to correction but I’d be very surprised if the question of whether lesbians should be allowed in women’s prisons was ever a matter of serious discussion.
  #94  
Old 05-10-2019, 05:18 PM
Unreconstructed Man is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I didn't say anything of the sort. Their gender is irrelevant -- that they allegedly assaulted people is very bad, but treating trans people like humans doesn't make assault more likely. The problem in that case, apparently, was putting a predator in a position, without proper supervision/oversight, in which they could get away with doing terrible things. That has nothing to do with gender identity, and probably plenty to do with the serious problems in our corrections system.
But if you allow people access to female spaces on the basis of a simple self-certification (such as genderqueer people who feel more like a woman on a given day, for example) then you’re also allowing predators who’ve no compunction about just flat-out lying about such things the same privilege. You’re giving them easier access to those spaces, access which they have to work much harder for at the moment. For women who (for understandable reasons) are uncomfortable around men, and who have absolutely no way to tell the difference between genuine trans people and lying predators, this can be very troubling. It’s not a concern that can just be hand-waved away by calling these women bigots and haters and TERFS or whatever.

What, specifically, other than “suck it up, buttercup”, would you actually say to those women to convince them that this is a good idea?

Last edited by Unreconstructed Man; 05-10-2019 at 05:19 PM.
  #95  
Old 05-10-2019, 05:29 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
But if you allow people access to female spaces on the basis of a simple self-certification (such as genderqueer people who feel more like a woman on a given day, for example) then you’re also allowing predators who’ve no compunction about just flat-out lying about such things the same privilege. You’re giving them easier access to those spaces, access which they have to work much harder for at the moment. For women who (for understandable reasons) are uncomfortable around men, and who have absolutely no way to tell the difference between genuine trans people and lying predators, this can be very troubling. It’s not a concern that can just be hand-waved away by calling these women bigots and haters and TERFS or whatever.

What, specifically, other than “suck it up, buttercup”, would you actually say to those women to convince them that this is a good idea?
This is already how it works. Generally, anyone can walk into any bathroom. But generally people don't do this in the "wrong" one, because almost no one has any interest in going into the bathroom except to use the facilities.

Nothing changes if we treat trans people with decency, in terms of threats to women. Liars can lie and get into the "wrong" bathroom, just like they always could. There's no new danger or risk here.
__________________
My new novel Spindown

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 05-10-2019 at 05:30 PM.
  #96  
Old 05-10-2019, 05:35 PM
clairobscur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Sure it could have occurred. A dishonest perv can pretend to be a transwoman, or a transman (or a ciswoman or cisman, for that matter), to gain access to their preferred targets, depending on the "rules". This doesn't change because transwomen are allowed to use locker rooms. Liars will lie, and pervs will perv, whatever the rules.
But then shouldn't this lead to the conclusion that women only spaces are utterly unnecessary?

Because I'm not arguing that transwomen in women only spaces is clearly a problem. I'm arguing that if there's actually a problem wrt the presence of men in some spaces (be it safety or simply prudishness or whatever else), then the access of people stating that they identify as a woman despite not having a woman make up is also a legitimate concern.

If it doesn't matter who enters a locker room because anyway pervs will find ways to do their perv things and this is addressed by existing laws about pervs and perv things, and women have no valid reason to be bothered by the unwanted sight of a dick, then I'm not sure why the solution advocated shouldn't be to make to make these spaces coed, period.
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.

Last edited by clairobscur; 05-10-2019 at 05:36 PM.
  #97  
Old 05-10-2019, 05:37 PM
Unreconstructed Man is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
This is already how it works. Generally, anyone can walk into any bathroom. But generally people don't do this in the "wrong" one, because almost no one has any interest in going into the bathroom except to use the facilities.
No it isn’t. If a man walks into a women’s bathroom today (or locker room, or domestic violence shelter, or whatever) he’s told to get out, and if he refuses security or the police will remove him. If he’s a predator, and if he can establish his bona fides by simply saying “I’m a woman”, what recourse does anyone have? Why can’t he stay there for as long as he likes? And how are vulnerable women in the same space supposed to deal with that?

Quote:
Nothing changes if we treat trans people with decency, in terms of threats to women. Liars can lie and get into the "wrong" bathroom, just like they always could. There's no new danger or risk here.
And if there was some way for women to tell the difference between non-passing trans women and predators I might agree. But there isn’t.
  #98  
Old 05-10-2019, 05:44 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,609
Are we starting that "What if they just say that they are a woman and march into the women's room" crap yet again?
  #99  
Old 05-10-2019, 05:46 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Nothing changes if we treat trans people with decency, in terms of threats to women. Liars can lie and get into the "wrong" bathroom, just like they always could. There's no new danger or risk here.
This sounds like gun-proponent logic: "If we put up a school sign that says this is a gun-free zone, shooters can still bring in guns anyway, so why bother labeling it a gun-free zone?"
  #100  
Old 05-10-2019, 05:51 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is online now
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Really? Were you like... asleep during all of the 2000s? Actually finding the headlines in question is quite difficult, but I guarantee I'm not the only one who's seen or heard of people being threatened by gay people in gendered locker rooms. Seriously. Like, Miller, you were awake at some point between Stonewall and now, right?
Here's a conversation on the subject from 2013.

Another from the same year.

A Quora question about why lesbians are allowed in women's locker rooms but not straight men. That's from 2015.

A story from 2003 about an 8th grade girl who identifies as a lesbian not being allowed to change with the other girls in her gym class.

A page at debate.org over whether queer people in general (not just trans people) should be allowed to use the same locker room as everyone else. Lots of comments there about people not wanting to be "ogled" by other people while they're showering.

This Teen Vogue article from 2017, "Top 10 Lesbian Myths Debunked" starts with, "Lesbians are looking at you in the locker room."

A forum post from 2014 from a woman who doesn't want to share a locker room with a lesbian.

This undated article from "NewsMachete" ( ) uses the transgender bathroom debate as a launching point to argue that lesbians should be required to use the men's room, so they don't creep on the straight ladies. Given the stories it references, it appears to be from around 2015.

Another forum post from 2016 wondering if gay people should be allowed in locker rooms with straight people.

So, yeah, that's not an uncommon sentiment by any means, even today.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:57 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017