Is it ALWAYS necessary to center the needs and feelings of males?
A shelter that is only open to females serves an important purpose. It’s a good thing.
Trans people face sky high rates of sexual assault and abuse.
https://ovc.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh226/files/pubs/forge/sexual_numbers.html
Is it not reasonable to be concerned that many have no access to shelters and other safe places? This doesn’t mean that there should be no safe spaces for cis women. But it really is necessary for there to be shelters where trans people are welcome. At least if the safety of trans people matters (it does, IMO).
And is it really necessary to use such dismissive language, as if being concerned about the sky high rates of violence against trans people is just catering to “males”?
But, even if it’s true (which we don’t know that it is) that a transwoman who’s been on hormone therapy for two years is less likely to have that typical male aggression/violence than a transwoman who’s been on hormone therapy for one year who herself is less likely to be violent than a transwoman on hormone therapy for 6 months…how do we say, ok only transwomen who’ve been on hormone treatment for two or more years can come in the women’s locker room? That’s impossible to enforce without trans people having to carry around proof of their medical history…which seems so demeaning to me.
I keep going back to unisex locker rooms because that’s the only thing that doesn’t demean anyone, doesn’t out anyone, and doesn’t increase anyone’s risk of harassment or violence.
That’s a very valid concern. Why is it bad, though, that there is a rape shelter specifically for females?
I didn’t say that it was.
…I implore you, though, listen to women.
I missed the edit window, but I wanted to add that I’m referring to unisex locker rooms in addition to men and women’s locker rooms.
YWTF and Monstro have responded to your post so much better than I could, so I won’t bother. I am curious to hear your response to this though:
And I’ll use this as a opportunity to reassert that unisex spaces would promote the vision that gender ideologues are pushing: that biological sex isn’t a big deal. Perpetuating a system formulated around biological sex entrenches the idea that the biological sexes should be separated…even if it is marketed as gender separation.
I think the reason gender ideologues aren’t pushing for mixed-sexed spaces is because they’ve gone all in on “gender affirmation is a right!” They’ve got in their head that mixed-sexed spaces are regressive(!) because they think it’s a Jim Crow-like “separate but equal” solution for gender minorities. But it is the only solution that makes any fucking sense if we supposed to believe gender is a social construct not tied to biological sex. Practically by definition, social constructs are dynamic. To deal with that dynamism, we need a solution that is gender neutral. If people think that is regressive, then they need to drop the “gender affirmation is a right” bullshit and just say what they really believe: gender non-conforming individuals are entitled to use whatever spaces they want because they are special snowflakes, unlike the normies who are all basic Chads and Stacies.
I know this may seem like a provocative statement, but I don’t know how else to interpret the recalcitrance to mixed-sex spaces. It really does seem like if you are a feminine male, you are the ultimate wild card. People will believe you are entitled to insert yourself wherever you choose, damn what anyone says.
Yes it is necessary for there to be welcoming shelters for transwomen. These shelters exist. in fact, as I’ve repeatedly shown, there are LGBT-focused shelters. Can you acknowledge this?
The rate of sexual assault among women exceeds that of transwomen (the stats bear this out). Can you acknowledge this? What happens to your argument if it hangs on a falsehood?
If it wasn’t so logistically difficult to differentiate transwomen from men merely calling themselves trans (often for predatory reasons), then relaxing shelter inclusion criteria to permit their stay would be a much easier call to make. But it is very logistically difficult given the way trans is defined. I would say it’s next to impossible for a shelter of minimal means.
So what I’m left assuming is that you are willing to see hundreds of women terrorized by trans imposters if it means one transwoman doesn’t have to be referred to a shelter that is better prepared to accommodate them.
Okay, I appreciate you saying this. I agree that in a perfect world, no one would be turned away from a shelter if they arrived in crisis situation.
But the reality is that shelters often have limited space and lack staffing resources. If everyone who knocked at the door was taken in, no questions asked, then what you will see is vulnerable groups (like women and children) being turned away because all the beds are taken. Or they will self-exclude because of safety concerns.
None of this disputes anything I’ve said. Yes, such shelters exist, but still many trans people have no access to shelters. The last paragraph is a totally inaccurate reflection of my views.
There is a reason for this, which I’ve tried to explain a few times before and will try again now.
Your concerns are the concerns of people. Individual people. Individual events. You bridge those concerns into a claim that transgender protection laws pose a serious threat to the health and safety of all women who live under those laws. This is not unreasonable.
At this point I’m going to ask you a question, and then answer it for myself. What information, if it was made available to you, would lead you to believe you are wrong?
I’m not talking about what changes to the laws, or changes to the concept of transgender protection would make you comfortable with the idea. I’m asking, given the types of laws in place today, is it possible to convince you that it’s actually every bit as safe for women to live in places with transgender protection laws as it is to live in places without them?
For me, there is plenty of information that would convince me that I’m wrong. Crime statistics comparing bathroom and locker room related incidents in states with transgender laws and states without, or before and after implementation of such laws. Information exactly like that Independent article you linked to, but about a different subject. That would convince me, I promise. We have 150 million people living under transgender protection laws today, and many of those laws have been in place for years. If this is actually the problem you say it is, it should be straightforward to prove. This isn’t rocket surgery, or magic, it’s Crime Statistics 101.
What does not convince me is the word of a UK bartender who quit the business 10 years ago. Or one attack on one child in one school district. Or a handful of attacks over a decade’s time in places and by people who may not have been influenced by a transgender law in any way. Or even a very useful article on the dangers of a tangentially related issue.
This is because people will do bad things with or without transgender laws, and the question is whether transgender laws make it worse. Individual instances of criminal attacks isn’t proof that the law has made things worse it’s just proof that people do bad things.
Ok. No one is arguing against trans inclusive shelters, so I took your post as an argument female-only shelters.
Some people have written eloquently on this issue of language as it is used to describe what we’d like it to describe.
Many of these points have been brought up in this thread. You can disagree with the relative importance other people give these points, but I don’t see the purpose in denying that these points exist.
I’d highly recommend reading both of those posts, written by the psychiatrist Scott Alexander. I think they’re a fair and even-handed discussion of the language-side of this topic.
By all means, advocate for more trans-focused and LGBTQ shelters. I bet every single person in this conversation will support and advocate for the same.
But that is the point I was replying to, the one made by Spice Weasel. Did you miss that?
She clarified later that that was not at all what she meant.
Your concerns are the concerns of people. Individual people. Individual events. You bridge those concerns into a claim that transgender protection laws pose a serious threat to the health and safety of all women who live under those laws. This is not unreasonable.
I disagree with this characterization. It is precisely because my focus is on populations, not individuals, that I see problems with gender affirmative policies. In my opinion, the people who are overly focused on individuals (individuals like your son’s classmate) tend to be arguing for gender affirmation.
At this point I’m going to ask you a question, and then answer it for myself. What information, if it was made available to you, would lead you to believe you are wrong?
Gee, I dunno. What evidence proves a negative? In a sense, this is like asking “What evidence would lead you to believe shooting guns into the air isn’t dangerous?” I’m going to need a lot of evidence to believe this, especially when I can point to people dying from wayward bullets. Plus I know how guns work, I know how bullets work, I know physics, and I know biology. Unless I lobotomize myself, I will always believe shooting guns into the air is dangerous.
Your side of the debate is making an affirmative statement: giving males the right to access safe spaces for females doesn’t endanger women and girls.
What would you need to see to believe you are wrong? Every time someone cites evidence of harm, you either dismiss it or ignore it. It is truly a remarkable thing to witness. It makes me think there is no limit to the number of women and girls who will need to become victims before you feel it necessary to even rethink your position. They will always be faceless, nameless “lightening strike” events to you.
I’m not talking about what changes to the laws, or changes to the concept of transgender protection would make you comfortable with the idea. I’m asking, given the types of laws in place today, is it possible to convince you that it’s actually every bit as safe for women to live in places with transgender protection laws as it is to live in places without them?
Of course its possible to convince me. You could start by showing me the evidence that it is every bit as safe. Just don’t assert that it is. Show me comprehensive data that covers female-only locker rooms, dormitories, shelters, and prisons. You have not shown anything like this, and neither has anyone else.
You also need to reconcile your assertions of no-harm with the existence of empirical evidence of harm. Male sexual offenders have infiltrated women-only shelters using trans identification; the stories have been cited in this thread. Male sexual offenders have infiltrated women’s prisons and violated female inmates; again, the stories have been cited in this thread. Women and girls have been assaulted in restrooms by males claiming to be trans; once again, the stories have been cited. This is evidence that cannot be dismissed in favor of faith-based claims.
For me, there is plenty of information that would convince me that I’m wrong. Crime statistics comparing bathroom and locker room related incidents in states with transgender laws and states without, or before and after implementation of such laws. Information exactly like that Independent article you linked to, but about a different subject. That would convince me, I promise.
I’m skeptical it would because you have already reached a conclusion without even seeing this data. Maybe I wouldn’t be so skeptical if you hadn’t responded the way you did when I posted the story about the 5 year old girl, but you did. It was a total knee jerk response of denial you exhibited. This suggests you’re immovable from your belief, and the below only underscores this:
What does not convince me is the word of a UK bartender who quit the business 10 years ago. Or one attack on one child in one school district. Or a handful of attacks over a decade’s time in places and by people who may not have been influenced by a transgender law in any way. Or even a very useful article on the dangers of a tangentially related issue.
And yet you believe what you do despite zero evidence to support a stance of no-harm.
You also believe transwomen risk attack by using men’s restrooms, but there ain’t no data to show this is happening any more frequently than the crimes perpetrated against women in female restrooms. Trust me, I looked. It isn’t there. Yet you believe this danger exists for transwomen.
I understand people have said they’re emotionally invested in changing the language. Again, though, that will not solve the problem. It’ll just kick it down the road a few months to a few years. The underlying concepts do not change, no matter what words we use. Switching the words around will not change that.
Consider a thought experiment. Suppose someone somehow became Emperor of the English Speaking World, and the new Emperor, Dave the First, issued the following proclamation:
Henceforth, because it is to the emotional well being of trans people, the words “man” and “woman” will no longer be used in the manner they historically were. They now mean “anyone who identifies as a man/woman” as the case may be. While some will argue this is circular, again, we are doing it for the emotional health of many people. You will use these words accordingly. Furthermore, desired pronouns will be used in accordance with this. These new meanings of “man” and “woman” should be used in most contexts, except as per the below.
However, as distinctions between biological sexes are important, this universal linguistic change will be accompanied by several other policy changes.
2. Henceforth I have create two new words, “mascperson” and “femperson,” which are now the words for human beings who have physiologically developed along the male and female sex paths, respectively. They’re clunky words but pretty clearly constructed and please start using them where appropriate.
3. As it is sometimes important to distinguish people according to sex as opposed to identified gender, all sports previously divided into men and women are now divided into mascpersons and fempersons.
4. Services, facilities and spaces that previously were allowed to be reserved for the use of women in the previous definition of that word may now be allowed to reserve access solely for fempersons.
5. It is acceptable in a health care context, when discussing matters pertaining to sex differences, to refer to people as mascpersons and fempersons.
6. It is acceptable that commercial enterprises selling products or services that have specific bearing on biological sex or sexual orientation use the words “mascperson” and “femperson” accordingly, to make the relevant distinctions.
Pursuant to this initiative, a blue ribbon panel of experts shall be immediately created to find the fairest ways to deal with people who, such as in the cases of (but not limited to) intersex people or people who have had sex reassignment surgery, require additional considerations and interpretations of this decree and other laws and regulations.
I’d accept that, but would others?