I’m interested in the statement that most transgender people make no modifications at all and have no body dysphoria. Not just not having “full gender reassignment” but nothing more than stating today I am a woman. Most seems strong, but I am sure of the actual figures. If I’ve missed it, I apologise.
Was this statement made in the Duncan piece? I don’t know if I’ve seen this expressed in this thread.
Duncan says most transwomen have not undergone sex reassignment surgery and have no intention of ever doing so. I don’t think he said most do not have gender dysphoria. Just that a lot of them do not.
It would be great if there were statistics for how many transwomen are on HRT. All I’ve been able to find are statements like “many” transwomen are on HRT. However, if we had the data, I don’t know how much we’d be able to conclude from it. Let’s say 60% of transwomen are on HRT or hormone blockers. Does that mean the other 40% don’t want it? Or is it just that they unable to pay for those treatments or find a doctor willing to prescribe them? Or maybe they don’t want to jigger with their hormones because there are underlying medical reasons, since there are elevated risks associated with HRT?
While a male on HRT or testosterone blockers is at least doing something to indicate they are unhappy with their body, is it enough to qualify them for “womanhood”? I am fixin’ to go on estrogen blockers to keep any residual breast cancer in my body from growing. Am I fixin’ to change my gender? Or am I just taking a pill? When a male that’s on HRT realizes they aren’t happy with how their body is changing and decides to stop it, are they changing their gender back? Is it acceptable to deny them the women’s restroom at that point? Or do we give them a pass because they are wearing dangly earrings and have glitter in their beard?
On one hand, I totally get why trans activists do not want to have biological gatekeeping criteria. Changing ones biology so that it is more female can lead to all kinds of fucked-up ramifications. Telling a male they must endure fucked-up biology to enjoy the “privileges” of womanhood sounds oppressive.
But on the other hand, cry me a fucking river. Every ciswoman I know would love to be able to avoid the fucked-up ramifications of a body that bleeds every month, gains weight too easily, with cellulite and stretch marks to boot, and has sex hormones that are directed towards reproduction (something she may not have any use for) rather than physical prowess and libido (things many women desire). I took the pill for five years to get some relief from this reality, and this decision might have given me cancer. Some women try to get relief by getting hysterectomies, and their suffering is just made worse by additional complications. I totally understand why a transwoman would want to opt out of the unpleasant biological aspects of womanhood. But their ability to opt out makes them fundamentally different from those of us who cannot.
Yes, as monstro said, it was a claim by the gay man Duncan who is now gender critical. He said “most” transwomen don’t undergo full medical reassignment. I’m curious about the numbers who have done some or part, since a few people who say they are women but make no effort to “pass” in any way are coming up in conversation.
I assumed he was talking about genital surgery. The below article gives figures of 5-10% and 5-13% in transgender women, and says 45-54% desire it in the future.
It doesn’t give an estimate of numbers on hormone therapy, but I would assume it’s very much higher. There’s probably also a significant population of people who identify as transgender but haven’t decided to transition (yet), but people who are ‘out’ but make no effort to pass are probably relatively rare. More common in environments like universities, perhaps, where it’s common in some circles to experiment with gender identity - see Dangerosa’s posts in this thread.
Because it openly states that transwomen aren’t actual women. That’s the hateful bullshit, and I know it’s hateful bullshit because it’s bullshit I believed. When there were transwomen on these boards back in the day talking about themselves I thought it was crap, that they weren’t real women, and fuck them because they’re not real women. I don’t remember if I actually posted that shit, but I’m embarrassed to have thought it. I’m ashamed that I would have happily played a part in making that person feel less like a human being.
So, if the price of letting people feel like real people is that there’s another person in line with you… So. Be. It. I’ll happily support anyone who wants to change the laws to demand more restroom space be required for women’s bathrooms. But I’m sure as hell not going to fix those long lines by dehumanizing someone.
Why isn’t your position that we create gender/sex-neutral options for anyone that isn’t particularly concerned about having a single-sex facility? Keep female restrooms as they are but add a mixed sex space (or convert the men’s room to such a space). That option would probably be more logistically feasible than adding more toilets to existing women’s rooms, and it wouldn’t force females to give up single-sex accommodations that provide them with some measure of privacy and security.
I don’t get the sense you read the piece by Duncan. Could you do that and tell me where you disagree with him? There is a paragraph where he writes about what it means exactly to treat someone as a woman. It spoke to me when I read it, so I’m curious about what you think about it. I’m also curious if you think Alex Drummond is entitled to be called a woman.
This statement you just made:
That’s the hateful bullshit, and I know it’s hateful bullshit because it’s bullshit I believed.
…is not an well-reasoned explanation for why limiting “actual” women to adult human females is a
hateful statement. You don’t have to hate transwomen to see them as biologically and politically distinct from people who are in the female sex class and thus, belonging to their own group. There is little utility in calling them actual women, except to advance a false pretense for ideological purposes. If it’s not hateful to say that men are biologically and politically distinct group, then a rational argument is needed to justify why a similar statement about transwomen is hateful.
They’re only in the bathroom to see your genitalia? I thought they were only in the bathroom to hog the stall and force you to wet your pants. Transpeople really ARE out to get you, aren’t they?
That’s very unfair take on @YWTF’s post. She’s not talking about transpeople. She’s talking about perverts exploiting loopholes created for transwomen. It’s insane that we’re still having to deal with this repeated mischaracterization after so many posts. It almost feels…intentional. Like you are intentionally distorting what she is saying to score points.
The thing is, I don’t believe that pervs masquerading as transpeople in order to peep at women’s crotches in the bathroom is an issue. I don’t believe they even exist and I find “they may not exist now but they’re bound to show up in the future” is an utterly unconvincing argument.
I’m so confused.
You think Peeping Toms don’t exist?
Or do you think that Peeping Toms have a code of ethics that forbids them from entering a women’s restroom under the guise (literal or figurative) they are a transwoman?
Right now, if I see a male in a women’s restroom, I can run and tell the authorities and not have to worry about most people calling me a TERF.
But in a society operating by the rules of gender theory, this is unacceptable behavior. A male, even a super masculine, threatening-looking one, should be assumed to be a woman, the same as any other woman. Calling the cops on such an individual would be Karen behavior, and thus hateful and oppressive.
So what will result is that Peeping Toms will have more access to women’s spaces. They don’t have to “masquerade” as anything. They can present however they want to present. They don’t even have to say “I am a woman”. They can have an ID card that has a big M on it. And if a woman has a problem with their presence and acts on it, she will be the one who is made out to be the bad guy by folks such as yourself, who seem to think that women are always hysterical wackjobs inventing imaginary monsters. Even when reams of evidence has been presented to you, we’re still hysterical wackjobs inventing imaginary monsters.
In this thread, no one has questioned whether transwomen are under the threat of violence. Even though though less than 1% of the posts here have been authored by transwomen, their voices are loud. Their claims are taken at face value. No one has called them names or suggested they are paranoid.
A ciswoman expresses concern over Peeping Toms in women’s restrooms and she is told they don’t exist. I could post eleventy-billion cites in support of her concern, but the skeptics will continue to skeptic. Cuz why the hell not? She’s probably a Karen anyway, amirite?
If I shake my head any more it’s going to fall off.
I know peeping toms exist. I BELIEVE IT IS EXCEEDINGLY RARE FOR A PEEPING TOM TO PRETEND TO BE TRANS. I don’t believe at all that a peeping Tom would gain anything by pretending to be trans. Not at all. Not even a little bit. Every single argument you have made is totally and completely unconvincing.
At this point this I’m more scared that someone like YWTF will detain me in the restroom and force me to show them my genitals because they think I look masculine than I am of peepers
Isn’t that every bit of an anecdotal fear as the one you appear to be describing with respect to peeping tom incidents? Perhaps even more so. Are there many reports of women demanding to see genitals in rest rooms?
I was
A. Being hyperbolic and a little bit sarcastic
B. Reacting to YWTF’s statement that she thought suspiciously male persons in restrooms should be detained and required to “prove” their biological sex.
In real life I use public restrooms fearlessly.
TYPING IN ALL CAPS DOESN’T MAKE YOUR POSITION ANY LESS THAN A STRAWMAN. IT WAS A STRAWMAN THE FIRST FIFTY TIMES IT WAS POSTED. IT IS STILL A STRAWMAN. IT WILL ALWAYS BE A STRAWMAN.
The position being made by @YWTF is NOT “perverts will pretend to be trans”!
Her position is “Male perverts are already in women’s spaces. The only defense that woman have against them is being able to scream and call for help at the sight of all adult males in the women’s restroom. Take this away by socially vilifying this response and women will have no preemptive defenses against male perverts. Male perverts will be able to attack women even more than before. And what’s worse, women will continue to be subjected to victim-blaming for “allowing” it to happen. Because that is what happens when women are attacked by men. We are blamed for knowingly putting ourselves in a vulnerable position and not “reacting” the right way. By opening the doors of the women’s restroom, you’re only compounding the lose-lose situation women are already in. But I guess if a handful of female-identifying males can pee wherever they want to pee, we shouldn’t care about any of that, right?”
If you can’t be bothered to really listen to the argument that is being made, don’t participate in the fucking thread.
This is how stuff goes down today:
Police officer: “Ma’am, can you tell me why you called 911?”
Woman: “A man entered the women’s restroom right after me. He got in the stall next to mine, so I got out of there. I called 911 because I felt like he was up to no good.”
Police officer: “OK, can you give me a physical description.”
Woman: “He’s that man over there, officer. He’s standing next to the women’s restroom.”
Police officer: “OK. I’m going to ask him a few questions and see what’s going on.”
What the gender ideologues want to see happen:
Police officer: "“Ma’am, can you tell me why you called 911?”
Woman: “A man entered the women’s restroom right after me. He got in the stall next to mine, so I got out of there. I called 911 because I felt like he was up to no good.”
Police officer: “What do you mean by a ‘man’?”
Woman: “What?”
Police officer: “How do you know this person isn’t a woman?”
Woman: “Uh…”
Police officer: “Did you ask them what their gender identity is?”
Woman: “Um…no. I just know they weren’t an actual woman.”
Police officer: “That’s hateful language, ma’am.”
Woman: “Why are you calling me that? How do you know I’m a ‘ma’am’? How do you know I’m not a ‘sir’? This gender shit is bullshit!”
Police officer: “That may be the case, ma’am. But my hands are tied. We are simply not allowed to question whether someone belongs in a particular restroom or not. The person you saw may have very well been up to no good. But unless you actually see that person do something illegal, I cannot do anything to them. I can’t even ask them any questions.”
Woman: “So what you are saying is that this is not a women’s restroom. It’s just an ‘everyone who isn’t obviously breaking the law’ restroom?”’
Police officer: “Yes, that’s what I’m saying.”
Woman: “So the next time something like this happens, what should I do?”
Police officer: “I think if your gut is telling you something is not right, you should get out of there. Just be discrete about it. No need to scream and holler or call the cops.”
Woman: “But what if it is an emergency and I really have to go?”
Police officer: “Maybe bring a friend with you? Or just man up and piss anyway? I don’t know, ma’am. It’s not my job to tell you what you should do. It’s my job to tell you what you shouldn’t do. Calling the cops without any concrete evidence of wrong-doing is something you should not be doing. I’m not about to embarrass that person standing over there by asking them what their gender identity is just because you’re afraid of them. Come on, ma’am–I mean, whatever you are. Please try to be more reasonable.”
Cite? Because I don’t believe that this conversation has happened anywhere except your imagination.
Anyway, I don’t see how forcing my burly bearded trans nephew to pee in the ladies room helps allay your fears.
Which is the reason for my interest in the conversation. Because I know how he is harmed by this bullshit. There are states he won’t visit on vacation or even travel through because of this bigotry. And it limits his choice of employers.
When YWTF suggested, in another thread, that a trans person might be in the stall peeing ,causing her to have to wait in line, causing her to pee copiously all over the floor and suggested that was a valid “talking point” against trans rights - that’s when I saw clearly what she was. I think if she seriously has a problem that makes her incapable of holding her urine, she needs to see a doctor instead of blaming transgenders.
I do believe your fear is genuine to you but I also think it’s completely baseless. I’m not inclined to be as charitable to the other participants in this thread.
She understands very well what we mean. Since I’m still waiting for her and @Kimstu to address the hypothetical I posed eons ago about the girl in a locker room, I’ve long concluded she can’t without experiencing a serious bout of cognitive dissonance. And if you think about it, the hypothetical does put her in a tough spot:
-
Admitting that the girl is justified in being alarmed when a man starts undressing next to her in a locker room means admitting there is a valid reason for female folk to be concerned about strange males in this space. Once you admit that, then you realize how unfair it is to expect women and girls to have faith that the very people they are afraid of are not lying or being delusional about their gender identity. If a girl is alarmed and has a valid reason to be alarmed, then only an unreasonable person would insist she stay in that room.
-
Saying a girl is not justified in being alarmed because “how dare she be so prejudiced and paranoid!” means dismissing everything that we know about the risks women and girls face from male predators. It means actually faulting a girl for not wanting to be naked around a male stranger. It means committing yourself to the misogynistic belief that women/girls are not allowed any boundaries when it comes to males. Not even bona fide misogynists are willing admit to that position.
As with prisons, this is where one’s commitment to the belief that “someone is a woman if they call themselves a woman” is really tested. This is warm and fuzzy rhetoric, but it doesn’t work in the real world.
It’s hard to see how laws build around “You can use whichever bathroom you identify with” can stop incidents like this where men change in women’s locker rooms for the fun of it. Without any classification or definition of trans in the laws, it would seems this man is legally allowed to change in the locker room if he wants. If questioned, all he has to do is say that he identifies as a woman, even if it’s just in that moment.
I personally think that trans people who have undergone significant medical transition should be allowed to use the facilities designated for their gender identity. In these situations, it’s clear the person is sincerely trans and is committed enough to take significant steps to align with their gender identity. If someone only puts a casual or trivial effort to align with their gender identity, I don’t think they should be granted as many gender-specific rights.
I’m able to do something that you seem unable or unwilling to do: Advocate for other women’s concerns even if I, personally, don’t have those concerns.
Am I worried about having to waiting a little longer because a transwoman is using a stall? No, I’m not all that worried. My bladder works just fine, my periods are manageable, and I’m not at any risk of pregnancy. Unisex restrooms wouldn’t be the end of the world for me, given this.
But that is just for me.
Other females are not so lucky. They need as much access to private and secure toilets that they can get. While I don’t think it’s the end of the world if transwomen use these toilets, I object to any and every assertion that they are entitled to these toilets. They are not entitled. The wrongness in treating this as an entitlement is the crux of this debate. The reason we have single-sex accommodations is to accomodate people of the female sex. The basis is entirely biological.