radicurious answered:
I disagree with transgender ideology, yes, but that doesn’t mean that I hate transgender people or that I want them to be attacked, murdered at high rates, discriminated against and harassed on the street. I want all transgender people to be safe from violence and discrimination, so I definitely wouldn’t celebrate any kind of violence or discrimination towards them. Let’s take a much discussed example – the bathroom issue: I don’t think all transgender people are rapists or “degenerates” – I know that the vast, vast majority of transgender people are decent people just wanting to be accepted and allowed to express themselves and live their lives as they please. That being said, transgender women have the same crime rates as “cis” men – also when it comes to violent crime. This means that they, statistically, are just as likely to assault or rape a women as a “cisgender” male would be, and thus placing them in the same bathrooms, changing rooms and shelters as biological women would compromise the safety of the biological women using said restrooms, shelters and changing rooms. There’s no doubt in my mind that the vast majority of trans women simply want to pee without experiencing the risks and the dysphoria that going to the mens room might involve, but allowing a group which is statistically as violent and as sexually aggressive as “cis” men into women’s restrooms and changing rooms is a recipe for disaster. Just look at some the numerous cases of biological males claiming to be/dressing as women attacking and harassing biological women in women’s changing rooms and bathrooms. My worry about letting transgender women use the women’s bathrooms doesn’t come from irrational hatred of transgender women – it comes from statistics and recorded cases which prove that allowing transgender women in women’s bathrooms would pose a threat to biological women’s safety.
I share ‘Radcurious”s assessment of the situation. And it comes down to this, which is a of a higher priority – the feelings of men or the physical safety of women? And if it is ‘transphobic’ to prioritize the safety of females, so be it, because it is the right call in this situation. Women are under constant male threat and surveillance in our society and should have spaces where the panopticon of male dominance cannot reach.
That being said, I am also in full favour of having 3 washrooms available in public spaces, and that space should be taken from existing male facilities when new ones cannot be constructed to accommodate the variable gender constituency of our populations.
[Source]
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
22 comments
April 6, 2017 at 7:29 am
tildeb
Just a heads up: the links from radicurious to assaults are all unavailable. But I wasn’t aware that PlosOne is now considered an extension of Breitbart News according to Pink. Who knew?
LikeLiked by 1 person
April 6, 2017 at 7:36 am
robert browning
John Lennon was right that women get the short end of the stick everywhere around our world. Still I feel a lot of misdirected energy on this restroom topic. One should be enough- OK, partitions, stalls or whatever priorities discussion might determine are wanted. “Statistically the same” is not the same as statistically relevant. It reminds me of corporate pols in the U.S. and their voter fraud nonexistent issue.
LikeLiked by 1 person
April 6, 2017 at 7:43 am
Omegaphallic
Do you honestly think anyone who inclined to ignore societial rules of conduct to rape or assault someone in a bathroom, will draw the line at entering a bathroom they are not supposed to be in?
LikeLike
April 6, 2017 at 9:02 am
The Arbourist
@Omegaphallic
Nope probably not. Violent males will be violent where ever they want to be. But the social stricture will keep some of the offenders away because it is understood that they should not be in there, and also keeping those violent men who only need to say ‘I identify as a woman’ to get access out.
The root problem, male violence in society, needs to be addressed because as is, nobody is particularly safe in washrooms or other public areas.
LikeLiked by 2 people
April 6, 2017 at 9:07 am
The Arbourist
@Tildeb
Thank you for the heads up.
That looks like a tumblr issue. I’ll dig around a bit when I have time to see if the links exist in other places and what not.
What’s a small oversight when you’re defending liberalism and the very values of the Enlightenment itself? :)
LikeLiked by 1 person
April 6, 2017 at 10:05 am
violetwisp
The only purpose it serves is to humiliate all gender non-conforming people, who are now paranoid about going to the toilet in public. That’s one way to ensure physical gender stereotypes are enforced, well done for undermining your own agenda! :)
LikeLike
April 6, 2017 at 10:35 am
The Arbourist
@VW
Prioritizing female safety is my concern. The feelings of males, should come second to that.
So is insisting that dresses, heels, and makeup – the trappings of stereotypical patriarchally approved femininity, somehow makes you a woman and also, as a by product, conserving and reinforcing toxic gender stereotypes that hurt everyone in society.
:)
LikeLiked by 3 people
April 6, 2017 at 4:25 pm
violetwisp
I’m not sure you understand my comment. You want to rewrite gender roles, don’t you? Gender non-conforming people are those who don’t look like we expect their biological sex should ie women who don’t wear dresses, heels and makeup. Yet how do we know who is entitled to which toilet if we can’t see based on these gender choices that we link to biological sex? Pursuing this kind of bathroom fascism, if anyone takes you seriously, will lead to women who look masculine in any way (of whom there are many) being denied access to the toilets. How do we know who is who without the trappings? By drawing these distinctions you’re making it more embarrassing for people who don’t fit the gender binary – and most of these aren’t even trans. Can you see how counter productive that is? Would we need to check birth certificates or genitals at the door of the toilets?
LikeLike
April 6, 2017 at 4:31 pm
violetwisp
For example:
“I am female-bodied, but dress in a way that fits my own understanding of my gender identity which, while not male, definitely trends masculine.
….Here’s what happens. I walk up to the bathroom, with it’s picture of a woman in a dress, and I push open the door. Sometimes it starts there. A woman is coming out and she looks at me, looks up at the door, and looks confused. I push on anyway. Sometimes she will helpfully say, “I’m sorry, sir, this is the women’s room.” I have learned to say, “yes…I know” and keep walking without waiting for a response.
I use the bathroom as quickly as possible. I don’t know what the supporters of bathroom bills think trans and gender non-conforming people are doing in there, but I can assure you it’s not exciting. In fact, I can testify that most of the time we get out as soon as humanly possible. Then I wash my hands, carefully avoiding the mirror-reflected gazes of the woman next to me. I say nothing, unless something is said to me. And then I leave.
I am lucky in that the worst that has ever happened to me in a women’s room is that I’ve been embarrassed. Friends of mine have not been so lucky. One was pulled out by force by a man who believed she was going to harm his wife. He had thought she was a man.”
https://emilycheath.com/2016/04/27/on-restrooms-gender-and-fear/
LikeLike
April 6, 2017 at 7:31 pm
Miep
If it’s a social norm for obviously male persons to use women’s facilities, this provides camouflague for predatory men. A large part of the problem is simple voyeurism. And if a woman cannot feel comfortable telling a man he doesn’t belong in the women’s room, it opens the door wide for this kind of behavior. It’s not complicated.
Men should use men’s facilities, and if that’s problematic, then something should be done about men’s facilities to make them less problematic. Women’s facilities are not the problem here, so they should not be part of any proposed solution.
LikeLiked by 1 person
April 6, 2017 at 8:27 pm
tildeb
That’s just it, VW: gender and sex are not the same. Sex is binary. That’s just a biological fact (not sexual attraction). Gender, however, is how a society defines the masculine and feminine and so it stands to reason that there will be a natural discrepancy when the two bump up against each other. Arb’s solution is to have a transgendered bathroom/ change facilities available so all can feel safe.
Insisting that a person can decide which gender identity to assume and then make everyone else conform to that is a recipe for ongoing conflict and one other thing. Sex is different because it is innate.. it’s a biological reality. male, female. Later gender identities is not innate because gender means what has become social norms for each sex (creating all kinds of conflict and inequities) and, surprising no one, almost always seems to favour the male.
Interesting, yes?
Maintaining gender to be the determinant for identity (and then acting socially based on this gender identity) is what continues to empower that one other thing: patriarchy.
Sure, choose whatever gender identity you want but – lo and behold – you will never bring about enough social currency to dismantle patriarchy because you’ve empowered this notion of gender… the essential ingredient for patriarchy to thrive.
LikeLike
April 6, 2017 at 8:35 pm
violetwisp
And what about my comment made you think I need any of that clarified? How do we know who is entitled to use either a male or female toilet if we don’t ’empower this notion of gender’? Or check birth certificates on the door? By kicking up this sandstorm of fear, all they’ve done is make going to the toilet a problem for the people are subverting gender roles – the vision they seek. Gender neutral toilets don’t exist in many places, but people who don’t conform to the toxic patriarch roles do (not just trans people) and they are the ones who now fear public toilets. By insisting we know who is going to each toilet, we are reinforcing society’s standards.
LikeLike
April 6, 2017 at 8:46 pm
tildeb
Okay, VW. I give up. You’re just talking at me.
LikeLike
April 6, 2017 at 8:58 pm
violetwisp
Don’t worry, you’ve ‘just been talking at me’ for the past few days. It’s a common feeling when people come at something from different angles. But I won’t give up on you. :)
LikeLike
April 7, 2017 at 7:53 am
emmathers
John Lennon was not transgender and yet he beat Yoko.
LikeLike
April 7, 2017 at 9:04 am
The Arbourist
@VW
Morning VW.
You’ve been listening to Mr.M’s warped version of what I support, it isn’t accurate and it ignores the reasons for the positions I advocate.
Can we agree that gender, at least in its current conception in our society, is bad? Because the totality of where I am coming from hinges on the recognition that the gender/gender roles we are socialized into are a really, really shitty deal for everyone involved.
It most cases, biological sex is quite easily discernible. Of course there are outliers, but in the majority of the cases women can usually tell when there is a man around.
It is already happening, I’ve read several accounts of butch lesbians being denied access or harassed because they ‘look like men’. Situations like these are exacerbated by the precedent of males forcing their way into women’s spaces – the results you mention should unsurprising as women, who must be hyper-vigilant by default, need to raise their awareness levels even higher as men who look like women are a much greater potential threat to them than the momentary discomfort that a GNC female presents.
When the sex based oppression in our society is finally dealt with, along with the propensity for male violence, then I might be able to see the argument for uni-sex bathrooms. Ignoring the societal conditions though that still make it hazardous for women to be around men, does not make them go away. That is why until we deal with these problems, third restrooms should be installed so everyone’s boundaries can be respected and safety marginally insured.
No, we would need Men to understand that whatever their gender-feels happen to be that their feelings do not take precedence over the safety/boundaries of women. And to quote what Miep said:
“Men should use men’s facilities, and if that’s problematic, then something should be done about men’s facilities to make them less problematic. Women’s facilities are not the problem here, so they should not be part of any proposed solution.”
So why aren’t MTT (male to trans) using the male washroom?
LikeLiked by 2 people
April 7, 2017 at 10:34 am
windupmyskirt
I agree that prioritizing female safety is what is important here. I also think trans women should be included within this priority. They are targeted as much as CIS women.
LikeLiked by 1 person
April 7, 2017 at 10:41 am
violetwisp
Thanks for links, the second one comesto the point, which still remains muddled. It’s like, “yes, do what you want but don’t label it in a way that undermines my theory!”.
“People can dress however they choose, behave however they choose, modify their bodies however they choose, as long as these choices do not harm non-consenting others. This is to be encouraged, and indeed is an important part of the project of liberating humans from the oppressive constraints of gender. But none of this alters the underlying biological fact of their maleness or femaleness. No amount of challenging and modifying gender norms – or “queering” gender – will make a male person female, because to be female just means to be a member of the class of humans capable of gestating a child.”
Your labels are totalitarian and meaningless. We use labels to describe general experiences. If you want ‘female’ to mean the oppressed ovaries class, I’ll let you. But for me it means a lot more than that – some mixed up with bad gender roles, some natural characteristics that come with ovary building hormones that I see in non-ovary people. You can’t redefine that me or anyone else.
A good example is Tildeb recently annoyed at someone calling an atheist ‘evangelical’. I can only presume that across the pond it only has religious connotations, whereas we use it routinely to describe anyone who is zealous in advocating any cause. Words have meaning, but meaning is fluid across cultures, time and individuals. As are concepts.
I did a post, but haven’t dragged you into it. It explains my thoughts on the issue in more detail, and also the paradox of your position. I don’t think your demand makes anyone safer.
LikeLike
April 7, 2017 at 11:54 am
tildeb
The term ‘evangelical’ was used in a context to smear and falsely equate firmly held respect for what’s true (substituted in meaning by VW to mean ‘zealotry’) containing no superstitious nonsense with spreading a religious doctrine full of it.
Yeah, those are synonyms all right.
And then you pretend this intentional yet patently false equivalency plays no part in its targeted usage against atheists.
Oh please; more standard religious apologetics put to work by VW.
Yet here you are in this comment referring to me as if it is I who has a problem with understanding that words do indeed contain contextualized content – so blissfully unaware of the smear element as you naively pretend to be – yet here you are specifically to define real differences in sex to be equivalent to and synonymous with varying notions of fluid gender identity.
Yup, no problem here. Just move along….
So much for you linguistic insight. Oh… and it’s called ‘hypocrisy’ if you’re looking for a term to describe the double standard you’re using.
LikeLike
April 7, 2017 at 12:06 pm
violetwisp
I can almost feel your spit hitting my face. But maybe I’m misinterpreting your tone. I’ve done a post on it anyway, it will be interesting to see if anyone else has an opinion.
Anyway, just yet another example of your black and white thinking. Now I can’t even share dictionary definitions of words with you – you want different forms of EVIDENCE, do you? Maybe I’ll do a survey in the UK for you to see what the general public there think. :)
LikeLike
April 7, 2017 at 2:53 pm
tildeb
Pretending the term ‘evangelical’ is without religious context when referring to atheism stretches credulity beyond reason. The religious context is essential for the adjective to convey the same sense of mindless dedication to a cause. And the only conceivable ’cause’ for atheism is to stand against theism. So the use of the adjective with atheism has to be pejorative. It makes no sense otherwise.
But, stretching the imagination, why wouldn’t someone like Rautaukky use a better word that didn’t have this pejorative religious connotation? Well, perhaps it’s because English isn’t his first language. But you? Look how quickly you jump between us when I raise the issue with him and use this opportunity to defend the term and then misrepresent its meaning to be the third one in the OED dictionary to try your very best to avoid the religious association. Unfortunately for you, the first two meanings have EVERYTHING to do with religion. But you forget zealotry in the third one –
the one you just so happen to select – as a synonym in this case also has a direct religious correlation… a correlation you imagine plays no part in the ‘secular’ use of the term ‘evangelical’.
Clearly, a word like ‘passionate’ or dedicated’ or ‘principled’ could have easily been used if the intent was not to be pejorative. Accompanied by other terminology like ‘extreme’ and ‘fundamentalist’ you have used repeatedly to describe atheists who remain dedicated to the principle of respecting what’s true over and above any concern about tone or causing offense, the case is plain that you defend the term ‘evangelical’ only because you realize it indicates clearly what you are doing: religious apologetics, including the most disreputable tactics of apologetics that rely on deceit and misrepresentation, false equivalencies, and a clear lack of respect for anyone who doesn’t share your willingness to do what’s necessary to tolerate the intolerable.
LikeLike
April 7, 2017 at 4:00 pm
violetwisp
Yes, I understand your argument now. If I don’t agree with you, I’m practicing religious apologetics. Sound reasoning. Maybe you can try and rant about it for another six paragraphs or so. Please untwist your knickers and calm down tildeb. We’re actually have similar beliefs (most of the time). It’s just that I recognise mine are beliefs, and you think you’re an encyclopedia of facts. :D
LikeLike