Ultimately, I don’t get the value in looking at this one person. Whether Karen White is being truthful or not is just as relevant a question with regards to whether we should consider trans women/men as women/men to whether my friend X who is trans and not a serial rapist is being truthful.
And, neither of the answers to those specific questions are at all relevant to the larger question of whether or not as a society we ought to respect and honor people’s genders as they claim them.
It’s just a way of painting us all with the same brush. They are putting her up as an example of us when she is an aberration. It’s like saying all Black people are criminals or all Muslims are terrorists based on the actions of a few. It’s trying to find a justification for bigotry and discrimination by focusing on the worst examples of a group of people.
You’re an adult and can make that decision as to what you value more, and with full understanding of what you’re giving up. I’m not at all convinced a child of 11 can make this choice. Also the effects seem more radical with early transition; is never feeling desire and never having an orgasm worth it to fit in with society better and be happier with what you see in the mirror?
It’s indecent because you’re tying their rights to having body parts lopped off, not because it’s what they want, but because you demand it.
This has been said before, but not about gender identity.
It’s not more important, but it is more certain. You have a vague claim, and I’m going to be EXTREMELY specific about my wording here, that claim being:
Allowing self described transwomen to use womens’ bathrooms, locker rooms and changing rooms would increase attacks on women.
There is no evidence that this is the case. There is evidence of lots of things that are sort of similar to this but not really this. Men attack women more than women attack men. Unisex changing rooms are a bad idea. But nothing that really proves letting transwomen use services causes problems. Even if it did… make the effort to fix the problem, the actual problem, the men who are attacking women, not the transwomen who are trying to live like human beings.
Does respecting and honouring people’s genders mean legally treating trans people identically to cis people in every way? Because if so, then yes it’s relevant that in some circumstances people might have incentive to lie. It’s not just a question of lying to get closer to victims, though that certainly could happen. Prisons are an unpleasant and dangerous place not just for transwomen, but for many men, to. I don’t want to see a bunch of men opting into women’s prison, in order to have an easier time serving their sentences. That’s not fair on the women. And I think sending trans men to a men’s prison would be pretty unfair on them in many cases, too.
At the moment, pervs and weirdos have a very strong disincentive to stay out of women’s bathrooms and changing rooms; they’ll get the shit kicked out of them.
If people are allowed to self-identify, that disincentive is removed. As YWTF said earlier, you’re giving these creeps an inch and expecting them not to take a mile. When have they ever been so cooperative?
There’s only two solutions to this problem. The first is to create a criteria which allows trans people to use female spaces but which the creeps can’t take advantage of - which will necessarily involve a considerable amount of intrusive gatekeeping. The second is to give trans people their own spaces. Option two is both easier to implement and doesn’t require any gatekeeping. I can’t see any advantages to option 1.
Then let’s fix prisons while we’re at it.
This whole conversation feels ass-backwards. None of these perceived problems (rapists in the bathrooms, cis women being unable to play sports, criminals lying about their gender in order to get access to victims of their preferred gender in prisons) are reasons to refuse to find ways to open up spaces to trans men/women that otherwise have been closed to them. They’re all problems to be evaluated and addressed as part of moving towards equality, if you believe that honoring trans people’s genders is fundamentally important and a moral imperative.
If you don’t believe that honoring trans people’s genders is important, then all the rest of this is just wasted breath. Why debate the details of Ms. White’s situation, or whatever, when in fact it all boils down to “I don’t think it’s that important to honor and respect the genders people present those genders don’t match their private parts”?
Did I ask what the law says? Do you think the same thing as the law?
She didn’t say " A person who rapes women cannot be trusted to know what a woman feels like if that person is just the worst". She didn’t qualify it at all.
And if your argument is resting on relative horribleness of already very horrible people, it’s not much of an argument. We’re already talking about rapists here.
And I’m pretty sure I could find worse cis-women rapists than Karen White. For instance, she didn’t murder anyone, and there have definitely been women who both raped and murdered.
Do you believe that “transwomen are women” means something different than saying:
“Some transwomen are women and some transwomen are probably not (because they are lying and/or mistaken)”?
I see these statements are two different things, but I suspect you and others believe the former is merely a politically correct way of saying the latter. And then there are others who see “transwomen are women” as applying to all transwomen. Believing them all is what we have a duty to do.
And then there’s my position. I don’t believe transwomen are women because I don’t believe in gender. It’s not just about people potentially being dishonest. Someone could genuinely believe they feel like a woman, but there is no way for us to know if this feeling is diagnostic of “woman” or something else. It is a unknowable thing.
Someone may feel like they are hearing God’s voice, but that doesn’t mean they are. I’m not going to try to argue a person out of thinking God talks to them because that would be rude. But I will not be cowed or shamed into affirming this idea when I don’t believe it.
I also will not have a lot if patience with “Well, how certain are you that someone isn’t hearing from God?” If I have to be honest, I’d say pretty damn certain because people get stuff like this wrong all the time, but that’s besides the point. The point is that it’s unknowable and it’s not something we should be forced to accept.
It’s indecent because you’re tying their rights to having body parts lopped off, not because it’s what they want, but because you demand it.
What rights am I depriving them of? The right to piss wherever they want to piss? Is that a right you have? Is that a right I have? Why should a male simply saying the words “I am a woman” have the right to pee wherever they want, but a male who doesn’t say those words is granted no such right?
Everyone has the right to perceive themselves however they want to perceive themselves to be. But no one has the right to force others to share that perception. All legal categories require certain criteria to be met before an individual can play the “gimme my rights!” card. To insist that “woman” be the only protected class to be held to zero standards without expecting women to push back a whole lot is insanity at its finest.
This has been said before, but not about gender identity.
What has been said before?
Race is a social construct.
Sexual preference is a social construct.
Religion is a social construct.
Nationality is a social construct.
Disability is a social construct.
In all of these social constructs, gatekeeping is allowed. We gatekeep these things for social reasons. We gatekeep these things for policy reasons. We gatekeep these things for legal reasons.
Explain to me why gatekeeping is diabolical for sex and gender, but not for anything else?
It’s not more important, but it is more certain. You have a vague claim, and I’m going to be EXTREMELY specific about my wording here, that claim being:
Allowing self described transwomen to use womens’ bathrooms, locker rooms and changing rooms would increase attacks on women.
You are distorting my position BIG TIME.
Here is my position:
Giving males unrestricted access to women’s bathrooms, locker rooms, and changing rooms would increase attacks on women.
If you really think my position is a pack of unsubstantiated pack of lies and exaggeration, you should be pushing for women’s spaces to be turned into unisex spaces. You should be campaigning for men’s restrooms to be turned into unisex spaces. You should be questioning the repeated claims made here that men constitute a threat to women (cis or trans or both). But you aren’t doing these things. I think it’s because you know that violence against women would increase if we forced women to share the same spaces with men. We keep men out of certain spaces to increase women’s safety and sense of security. If allowing males to have unrestricted access to women’s spaces wouldn’t increase violence against women, then why even have women’s spaces? Do you those those spaces only exist for the sole purpose of gender affirmation?
I don’t have a problem being in a vulnerable position around people who I am confident are transwomen. I do have a problem being a vulnerable position around people who I don’t know to be transwomen–which would be 99% of men and 49% of humanity. I want to have the ability to keep questionable cases out of those spaces before I or anyone else become the latest victim of male-inflicted violence. Without that ability, there is no additional safety or security in those spaces. If you and other allies can’t be arsed to come up with a way to keep questionable cases out of spaces devoted to women’s safety and protection, then I’m never going to accept that every male in a women’s space is an actual woman. I’m never going to believe that TWAW is true as long as there is such a cavarlierness on what “woman” is from your side of the table. What you and your allies are telling me I should do is assume any male I see is a woman and thus trust them the same way I would trust the folks I know to be women, even when I’m in a moment of undress or another position of vuneralbility.
I’m telling you that’s some colossal bullshit.
In case you haven’t figured it out yet my position is
**I DO NOT THUNK VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN WILL INCREASE **
Cute.
I think you should be the test case. Start using men’s restrooms and locker rooms and report back to class your experience. If you aren’t harrassed, injured, or killed, then we will have evidence that transwomen have nothing to fear by peeing alongside men. And we will also have sufficient cause to push for the abolishment of women’s restrooms, since they are so unnecessary in this enlightened era of non-violent, non-misogynistic, non-deceitful men.
You don’t get to twist the request made by trans supporters. What they want is to give transwomen access to women’s facilities. Will THAT increase attacks on women? If so, provide your proof. If you think it’s the same thing as giving “males unrestricted access” then provide proof of that too.
That we should have separate facilities for certain people because it bothers other users of the facility. That separating the groups is good because it prevents them from hurting us and us from hurting them.
Allowed perhaps, in some circumstances… but required? Maybe if you’re going to get a big fat check from someone, but not to use a bathroom. Not to use a designated freely available public space. Nobody is gatekeeping for a toilet, nobody EVER gatekeeped for a toilet until certain people wanted the freedom to use the one that agreed with their gender identity. Bathroom security was defined by adding a “WO” on one of the doors. Now people want to do a genital check.
I don’t at all think those two things mean the same thing, and I don’t think anyone who you think believes that the former is a cute way to avoid addressing the latter actually does so. Because someone lying about being X is not an example of someone who is X. And, someone who is mistaken about being X is not an example of someone who is X.
You can’t give transwomen access without also letting in any Tom, Dick, and Harry smart enough to claim womanly feelings.
At this point, you’re only proving @RickJay right about the pernicious blindness men are showing in this debate.
No, what goes around doesn’t come around on here. Do not accuse other posters of lying outside of the Pit.
RickJay
Moderator
Imagine that you’re a pervert, and the only thing that gets you off is spying on women and girls as they get undressed. You really want to sneak inside the women’s changing rooms at your local gym. Unfortunately, there’s a problem; if you go in there, someone will kick your ass. You don’t want to get your ass kicked, so you don’t go in there, and not being able to go in there really bums you out.
Luckily for you, some well-meaning government officials have just passed an ordinance saying that people can self-certify their own genders. In other words, if people say they’re women (and maybe sign a form or two) then they have the right to be treated as women in all particulars.
The reason for this new rule is to help trans people feel more comfortable in their daily lives, and use facilities which best accord to their gender identity. There’s nothing wrong with that intention. It’s perfectly decent. However, you don’t care about any of that. All you care about is exploiting the enormous and blindingly obvious loophole in the new law.
Now you, a pervert and decidedly not a trans person, can go into any locker room or toilet you like, whenever you like. Best of all, if anyone has a problem then you get to report them. It’s an absolute Godsend! Now you can perv to your heart’s content. And if you’re lucky enough to find yourself alone with a woman or a little girl in one of those spaces then… well, you only live once.
That’s what people like me are afraid of. Tell me, in that situation, what, specifically, would stop a pervert from simply lying about their gender identity to gain access to those facilities.
How do you personally define transwoman? I believe when you are using the term “transwomen”, you are referring to people who are sincere in their transformation and strive to actually live like a woman. I agree that those people are unlikely to cause any problem. The problem is that trans supporters are setting the bar too low for meeting the requirements of being a transwoman. If the definition is fully fleshed out to something like “a transwoman is someone who sincerely believes they are a woman and makes a significant effort to align with traditional customs and conventions of cis-women in their society”, then yes, trans women will not pose a risk. But if the trans supporters define it trivially as “a transwoman is someone who says they are a woman, the end”, then anyone can meet that requirement at any time, including men, creeps, predators, etc. Trans supporters do not seem to want to address this loophole.
It’s a “problem” and “loophole” that doesn’t exist. I agree that “a transwoman is someone who sincerely believes they are a woman and makes a significant effort to align with traditional customs and conventions of cis-women in their society” and that starts with self-identification. This is an issue that doesn’t exist, or at least not in any degree to warrant the attitudes against us displayed here.
You don’t get to twist the request made by trans supporters
Why should I say “yes” to something without knowing how it will be safely implemented?
Whenever anyone wants to make changes to status quo, it is incumbent on them to show that the change will incur more benefits than harm. It is not incumbent of those who like the status quo to perform this analysis. Reciting a slogan is easy to do. Doing a cost-benefit analysis requires something more besides screeching into a bullhorn, because it forces the advocate to really understand what it is they are asking for. I don’t think you really understand what is if you are asking for if you can’t be arsed to weigh the pros and cons of your proposal.
What they want is to give transwomen access to women’s facilities.
What they want is a lot of stuff. Some of it reasonable and some of it isn’t. It’s OK to say “Um, no. You aren’t getting every fucking thing you want. We will allow transwomen to use women facilities, but we reserve the right to kick out males who we don’t believe to meet the bar for the ‘woman’ designation.” If trans activists want folks like me to be on board with TWAW, they need to define “transwoman” so that it isn’t a fucking clown car. Otherwise, I’m going to fight against “woman” being turned into a fucking clown car, because there will be harm if we turn “woman” into a fucking clown car.
Will THAT increase attacks on women?
Why don’t you ask that question to the women who were victimized by Karen White? Or do you think the women she assaulted while in prison would have been assaulted anyway?
This conversation is reminding me of the school closure debate happening right now. You’ve got folks who are acting like there’s no way keeping schools open will cause any harm. They have plenty of reason to think otherwise, but they just feel it deep in their bones that the corona will avoid school buildings as long as its occupants have faith everything will work out. They sincerely believe that the people who would get sick if schools remained open would have gotten sick even if the schools had been shuddered. These people are idiots. Of course there will be harm if we keep the schools open in a global pandemic! The question isn’t “Will there be harm?” The question is “Will the harm be excessive?” Some people are of the opinion that one sick person is excessive. While some people think the harm should be epic before we consider it unacceptable. No doubt it’s tricky to determine what’s “acceptable”. But it’s incredibly foolish to push for something (and slamming the decency of those who are opposed to that something) without factoring in the costs using available information and knowledge. This is especially foolish when it won’t be you incurring the costs.
If so, provide your proof. If you think it’s the same thing as giving “males unrestricted access” then provide proof of that too.
I can always tell who has experience influencing governmental policies and regulations and who doesn’t. You clearly do not. Groups who really want to influence decision-makers come armed with proof. They don’t expect the unconvinced to do anything but say “No”. So intelligent, respectable special interests groups try to address all the concerns of stakeholders in their proposals. They try to convince impacted communities that their proposals will not have a disproportionate negative affect on them . They do this with facts and figures and thoughtful mitigation plans, not slogans and shaming. And they try to persuade the skeptics by helping them to see how their proposal will benefit everyone, not just a tiny minority.
Trans activists and their allies aren’t doing any of this. You guys are just bleating slogans and insults into a bullhorn and expecting the rest of us to be impressed.