But Karen White hasn’t been denied the right to a trans identity; if she were to get out of prison today, she’d stand to benefit from all the gender affirmation policies TRAs are clamoring for just the same as any other trans woman. She’d coast right on into the women’s locker room like it’s her goddamn natural right, confident that she has the support of all those people who think it’s oppressive to segregate on the basis of sex but not somehow not self-declared gender. (I’m still waiting for this to be reconciled.)
And woe to the woman who recognized her as a sexual offender and made a stink about it before waiting for Karen White to violate someone. The idea that a woman might want to prevent harm in a safe space is preposterous, right?
When most critics talk about self-ID, they are talking about trans people being able to use their preferred facilities or sports leagues just by declaring that they are trans. In most jurisdictions where this is accepted, they don’t have to have a GRC or legal sex change.
The potential for abuse goes up significantly if a man with a big ass M on his ID goes into a women’s locker room and can’t be ejected as long as he says he feels like a woman that day.
…its kinda weird that you think that Karen White would have the support of people like me when I’m here literally telling you that she doesn’t have my support. And the fact that she would want to coast right-on-up would have nothing to do with what she would be allowed to do and not. She is a convicted sexual predator. They can put conditions on her release. Lets not pretend that they wouldn’t.
The women who recognized a sexual offender and made a stink about it would be doing the right thing and would be supported by people like me. We don’t let child abusers work with children when they get released from jail. And we shouldn’t be treating every transgender person as a potential sex offender because of the actions of a single person in 2017.
…the same way you determine if anyone else is lying. Are they actually committed to living as the gender they have declared? Or is it clear that the only reason they have made a declaration is so that they could access women only spaces?
The criteria is often nothing more than a single question.
It is exactly the concept of self-identification supported by groups like Stonewall.
A statutory declaration allows for legal scrutiny. As for fraudulent gender statements: how common is that now? What problem are you trying to fix?
Seriously, you have the same bad habit that @MrDibble does. It’s called “hit dogs will holler” syndrome.
It stands to reason that I’m not talking about you unless you support giving Karen the right to access women’s spaces. If you don’t think excluding her is oppressive, then you are not among the people I’m referring to.
That’s great. What’s your proposal to keep Karen White (and other male sexual offenders) out of women’s safe spaces? I see single-sex policies as serving this purpose. They are not perfect but they have been the best tool that we’ve had to date. How would this exclusion work in a practical way if gender affirmation is widely practiced?
…you are actually arguing a strawman. A fantasy you’ve invented out of thin air. There is almost nobody fighting for Karen White’s continued right to access women-only spaces and if there actually are people out there fighting that battle they are on the fringes and not representative of trans-inclusive feminism.
Your argument only works because of fear. People have to be scared in order for you to “have a point.” Without that fear you have nothing.
The same way we keep sexual offenders (regardless of their declared gender) out of women’s safe spaces now.
Without inspections at the door you can never know who is coming into and out of a bathroom. Single-sex policies can mean butch lesbians get harassed and kicked out of women-only spaces, it means trans-men, presenting as men, have no choice but to use the women’s bathroom. Single-sex policies have proven to be much more problematic than simply allowing people to use the bathroom most closely aligned to the gender they identify as.
The same way that child sex offenders aren’t allowed access to spaces that have children.
Well apparently you are unaware of the views expressed in this thread. As much as I’ve been accused of ignoring and dismissing the opinions of trans people in this thread, it’s ironic that I distinctly recall this exchange with @Boudicca90:
Not only does she think she’s entitled to women’s prison, she thinks she’s entitled to GRC. She has this view even though, as you pointed out, the judge felt she was insincere in her trans identity. @Boudicca90 went on later to say she didn’t care if gender affirmative policies meant opening up women’s safe spaces to people with violent criminal pasts. Transwomen, in her opinion, are entitled to this access regardless of whether it increases women’s likelihood of victimization.
…I’m well aware of her views. I too, distinctly remember those views. I also remember later posts that add clarity and nuance.
A single anonymous poster on the internet does appear to fit what I said about “fringes.” And you’ve missed a lot of nuance in her response: including the fact that the question you asked was should you “require applicants to be psychologically assessed to ensure no predatory red flags appear?” (No, I do not believe that you should)
To my knowledge, female sex offenders are not restricted from accessing women’s spaces. Perhaps you know different? Because they are literally a drop in the bucket compared to the total population of sexual offenders, women generally don’t worry about being attacked by other women. If you can find one story of a woman engaging in spying or sexually assaulting other women in a restroom or locker room, I’d be surprised. I’ve looked and can’t find any.
Male sexual offenders cannot access women’s restrooms and locker rooms when single-sex policies are enforced, which precludes the need for additional restrictions for sexual offenders. So if you’re in favor of just sticking with the laws on the book currently, this is another way of saying you’re not in favor of any special restrictions for this group. If you are in favor of coming up with these restrictions, then my side is needing to see what these ideas are. Otherwise, we will continue to believe this is just give lip service.
What would stop Karen White (or any transwomen with a history of abusing females) from coasting right-on-up into any damn place they want? Do you think convicted perverts get branded with a scarlet letter? Do you think if Karen White tried to stroll up into the women’s restroom of a standard American mall that there would be a bouncer at the door to stop her? No, there would not be. That’s not the case now and it definitely won’t be the case if the supporters of TWAW have their way.
I think it is naive to think that all supporters of TWAW believe a history of committing sex crimes against females is enough to revoke the “woman” card from someone. We don’t do this to ciswomen who are convicted of sexual abuse, after all. So I could see some (derpy) person thinking to themselves, “Why shouldn’t Karen White be allowed to have access to women’s spaces? If cis Karen doesn’t get banned from the women’s restroom for her perversions, why should trans Karen?” And the folks who don’t really give a fuck one way or the other will concede these people have a point and allow trans Karen to do whatever she wants.
Meanwhile, the crime statistics will show an uptick of women-on-women sex crimes. So that when ciswomen try to argue that we are experiencing harm from TWAW ideology, we will be laughed at since there won’t be any proof of it.
When a man appears, a woman summons the bouncer or a manager and he gets the boot. Believe it or not, no one needs to check genitals to know what a man is. You objected to the photo of Danielle Moscato’s that @monstro posted because you know damn well that person looks like a man.
This has been explained fifty eleven times in this thread. It’s not a smart question to be asking because it only shows yall have no idea what is happening in the real world. It smacks of a certain type of privilege—the privilege that comes with never having a bad encounter with a boundary-violating male who actually derives pleasure from violating boundaries and who has the physical advantage to do so. Because I have experienced this, I already know what plan I’d execute should I find myself half naked in a room when a man walks in. I also know what lessons I plan to give my daughters when they are old enough to understand, because it would remiss of me not to teach them this.
If this thought has never occurred to a transwoman, then it only underscores the distance between their perspective and the average woman’s. It only highlights the shallowness of saying TWAW.
…what stops any sexual predator from coasting up into any damn place they want right now?
The problem is sexual predators. The problem is not transgender people. You can’t even quantify the scale of the problem you want to fix. Karen White isn’t even in your country, and the crimes she committed were three years ago.). Why should she be used as the benchmark for how you want to treat transgender people?
I’m not suggesting there is a problem as yet but prevention is better than cure. If it is possible to avoid travelling down a problematic path then we should do just that.
To that extent I’m seeking clarity to understand if that is a potential problem with the the scenario you put forward. i.e. the Self Identification plus statutory declaration with legal power. I’m assuming that you don’t want a person’s signature by itself to be enough to confirm a gender change and all that comes with it. You seem to say that the statutory declaration carries some power and some means of enforcement. If that isn’t actually true then we are at the point where all that is needed is a signature. Many people are concerned about that.
If those legal powers can be triggered by reference to specific, demonstrable criteria that a person must adhere to, then that seems like a reasonable amount of gatekeeping that may well be good compromise.
However, even such modest gatekeeping is not accepted by all people involved in this discussion and the direction of travel (or at least the mood-music) seems to be aimed towards less and less gatekeeping right up to none at all.
So with that in mind it is relevant ask you (again), in relation to the examples that you give, regarding the commitment to living as the declared gender on pain of legal action
Can you answer that? Do you think it is important to have an answer to that?
A lot of the conflict in the thread is because “living as a woman” doesn’t really mean anything or have any kind of qualifications. In fact, I think it’s going to soon be an archaic notion to expect that transwomen “living as a woman” conform to standard norms and stereotypes of ciswomen. There have been many links to transwomen in this thread who are not conforming to typical feminine stereotypes, yet they are held up by the trans community as great examples of transwomen. I get the impression that to you, “living as a woman” means what it does to most people: generally conforming to social norms for women. But I’m not sure that is the viewpoint of the trans rights activists. It seems that there is a movement for transwomen to live and act however they feel, and that can be 100% masculine if they choose. Personally I think that’s fine–no one should have to conform if they don’t want–but it certainly complicates things when discussing how transwomen will fit into traditionally female-only and genetically XX-only spaces.
For the past umpity-ump years, strong women have been teaching their girls to not give a fuck about hurting a boundary-violating male’s feelings.
Now apparently girls are being told that they must swallow their own feelings and put on a happy face when a male appears to be violating a boundary. Because there’s a 1% probability of that male identifying as a woman and male women are precious people who can do no wrong.
One day it might be a 10% or 20% probability that the male identifies as a woman. If this happens, I really hope we have developed some reasoning abilities and either determine that unisex public spaces are the best way to go or decide it’s time for another slogan besides TWAW.
…what stops any sexual predator from coasting up into any damn place they want right now ?
95% of sexual predators are male.
Right now, women can scream if a male is in the women’s locker room and trust that someone will remove the male BEFORE he does harm. Because right now, most people don’t believe TWAW. Right now, TWAW is not an institutional policy in most places.
If we make it a social offense for women to scream at the presence of males, GUESS WHAT? Women won’t scream, no one will come save them even if they do, and the vast majority of sex predators will win.
Even right now, if I saw Karen White in the women’s restroom, I probably wouldn’t scream. Not because I believe she’s a woman and entitled to be there, but because I know what how bad that would make me look to someone who doesn’t know that Karen White is a monster. So I would back out of the restroom if I saw her in there and save my piss for when I go home. I’ll be a well-behaved woman because I don’t want people screaming TERF at the camera phone video of me that’s posted on Reddit.
I imagine this is a sticking point; somehow I would think that someone who is wishing to switch genders would also want to make gain the right to switch back at some future point if they so desire. And then there’s the question of non-binary people. I have no idea what al of the other 58 genders are or how they’d deal with the question.