I’ve been to restaurants that have the same policy. And while it may appear fine to us from our male perspective, do we know for certain whether or not women would be more comfortable having their own space? Has anyone asked? I’m not sure what this isolated example is meant to prove.
Within reason, and where possible, of course.
When I was a kid and my dad was working at our municipal pool I got to roam the place and discovered, much to my envy, that the women got private changing rooms and showers while the men’s was not only communal, with no private areas, the showers were arranged in a fucking circle with the shower heads in the center.
One might guess which one was preferable to a shy, prepubescent boy.
There is no shortage of women attending shows. I’d think if they were worried about men in the bathroom they’d stop going and the theater would take note of it and change the bathroom arrangements. But, it seems to work just fine.
It might be said that men are one of the leading causes of death for women. Certainly men can be rapists.
That says nothing about transwomen unless you think men are transitioning to be able to better be pervy/rapey on women. Never say never but mostly that is not the case (and men in drag are not trans).
The trouble with communal locker rooms is that they definitely increase women’s chances of being sexually assaulted: Cite
A small minority of men make communal changing rooms untenable. I don’t know if there’s similar data for communal toilets, but the precautionary principle should apply; anyone wanting communal mixed sex toilets should need to prove that they present no increased risk to women.
These spaces exist because women absolutely need them for their own safety. Now, my point is simply that if you want transwomen to have access to those spaces then you need to make the positive case for why transwomen are women. Saying “They just are and anyone who disagrees is a bigot” (which is the official position of this very board, as I understand it) just won’t get you very far. It’s not a persuasive message.
But, apparently, according to you, not the women that are trans men. Their safety isn’t even a part of the discussion. And the laws are not being written to give them the option that you propose they should follow.
It only says nothing about transwomen if transwomen are women. But that’s the case you need to make. The position on the progressive left (and this was my entire point all along) is that transwomen are obviously women and anyone who disagrees is either an ignorant bigot or a hateful bigot. That’s a false dilemma. The third option is that the progressive left just haven’t made a sustained, persuasive case that transwomen are women.
Sorry, this isn’t clear to me. Could you elaborate?
You said this person,
should, be forced I guess, to use the men’s facilities with all the increased risk of being sexually assaulted that that clearly has, despite AFAIK, having a vagina.
And we have already seen cis women harassed and arrested for using the facilities that their supposed to be safe in.
I thought transwoman was the preferred nomenclature. If transgender woman is the preferred term then I’m happy to use that.
@Miller is claiming a belief is bigoted with zero justification. It isn’t even similar to the other beliefs he cited. Why should anyone accept that it’s bigoted just because he says so? It doesn’t even fit the dictionary definition.
More broadly, why should society hand the power to unilaterally decide what beliefs are taboo to a small group of progressive activists? They aren’t smarter or more moral than any other group, and are evidently using it to try and advance their preferred political program. It is foolish for society to allow this.
Congrats on making Miller’s point with that paragraph that would be entirely at home in pre-desegregation America.
That person looks exactly like a man, and presumably wants to use the men’s toilets, right? So what’s wrong with him using the men’s toilets? I honestly don’t get your point here.
Are the proposed laws being written with that accommodation in mind or are they being written to make it clear that what gender you were assigned at birth is your gender forever?
To be clear, you are advocating that we all stop thinking for ourselves and allow a random group of self-selected political activists to decide what is right and wrong on our behalf?
When the “random group of self-selected political activists” are in the right, yes.
Why change the way we’ve been deciding what is right and wrong for tens of thousands of years now?
Are you suggesting all viewpoints are equally valid? There is no right or wrong? There is no better or worse?
You’re a conservative now? I don’t believe in priesthoods. The freedom to think for oneself is arguably the most fundamental one we have.
Which doesn’t make someone who is wrong any less wrong. The freedom to step off a cliff doesn’t repeal gravity.
I’ve seen far too many folks that ‘think for oneself’ tell me that gravity isn’t real to think that most folks actually have the capacity to think in the first place.