Why is this board so obsessed with restrooms?

[metis]

Let me ask again a question I've asked numerous times and never got much of an answer: Who's gonna check at the bathroom doors which sex a person who's entering is?

 

[icehorse]

I don't know that we'd both agree on what a slur is. Being told you're being unreasonable, as someone said to you, doesn't mean you've been slurred, as you said you were. I've watched you complain about being bullied when it doesn't appear that you're being bullied at all.

Here's another way to look at this: We're all debating each other. You're never the final arbiter and neither am I. As far as I know, we're meant to be debating IDEAS. We're not meant to be criticizing other posters. So I could see that I might be overloading the word "slur" too much. But my intention is to point out when the debate drifts from ideas to posters.

So being told I'm "unreasonable", is very assumptive, no? It implies that the accuser imagines themselves to be the arbiter. It presupposes that the accuser is "right". We're debating complex ideas. We're often doing it in near real time. Miscommunications are rampant. That's why I've been trying to steelman my opponents more, as a way to make sure we're at least understanding each other. We can understand and still disagree, right?

So, for example, if someone cannot steelman my arguments, how on earth can they call me illogical? If they cannot steelman me, they don't yet understand my points. Again, steelmanning is NOT agreeing, it's understanding.

I don't agree with you or with your argument. I'm the woman here, not you. I'm using the women's room, not you. And I'm the one who stands to be concerned if concern was indicated. Not you.

We both have our personal anecdotes. I have a wife and two daughters that I'm concerned about. I have women friends I've talked to, who have volunteered their concerns to me. You do not represent all women, and neither do I. But I do have common sense to fall back on. Why has society created safe spaces for women in the first place? Perhaps you're not concerned BECAUSE you've been fortunate enough to never experience being assaulted? My wife has been!

I'm not confused. Your "many trans women no longer care about looking like women" allegation hasn't been supported with facts or figures (and no, I didn't need the "i.e.", which should actually be e.g.); neither are you inclined to provide support for your allegations, since you leave to others the work of supporting your allegations. (You literally said this recently.)

I don't recall anyone asking me to provide citations for that particular claim. But I understand you're making a broader point.

So let's spin this around a bit: You and I are debating an issue that's important to both of us. My goal is to find better solutions, it's NOT to win the debate. I assume that's where you're coming from as well, to me that's an aspect of good faith. So if you truly care about this issue, and you hear a claim you've never heard before, you could choose to say to yourself "hmmm, I better go do 5 minutes of homework". FWIW, I do this ALL THE TIME in these conversations.

 

[icehorse]

Let me ask again a question I've asked numerous times and never got much of an answer: Who's gonna check at the bathroom doors which sex a person who's entering is?

I would say that as it mostly stands, we all look out for each other. If I see a couple of big mean looking dudes go into a women's safe space, I raise an alarm of some kind.

 

[Soandso]

Here's where it seems people get confused: Many trans women no longer care about looking like women, i.e. they look like men. When it becomes acceptable for people-in-general, who look like men, to enter into women's safe spaces, evil-non-trans-men will take advantage of that new normal.

What?... What do you mean by "many?" Like, where are you drawing this conclusion from, and how do you define "many?" Where is this happening?

 

[metis]

I would say that as it mostly stands, we all look out for each other. If I see a couple of big mean looking dudes go into a women's safe space, I raise an alarm of some kind.

You really didn't answer the question because in order to monitor this, someone would have to pull their pants down or dress up. Are you going to do that?

 

[icehorse]

You really didn't answer the question because in order to monitor this, someone would have to pull their pants down or dress up. Are you going to do that?

My concern is that some trans women no longer care about looking like women. So this normalizes the idea that people-who-look-like-men can now enter into women's safe spaces (restrooms, locker rooms, shelters, safe houses), without causing alarm.

 

[icehorse]

What?... What do you mean by "many?" Like, where are you drawing this conclusion from, and how do you define "many?" Where is this happening?

google gender**** (f word)

 

[Soandso]

google gender**** (f word)

Huh. I've never seen these people in the real world. Have you? And I live right by a leftwing haven right by Seattle. The only time I've seen people like this is on peopleofWalmart.com

You're talking about a tiny minority of a tiny minority. Thousands of people in a country of 300 million. That isn't very "many". Feels like you're just fear mongering

 

[icehorse]

I've never seen these people in the real world.

Well if YOU'VE never seen them, I guess we can all relax! phew! I feel much better now!

Have you seen women be raped? If not, I guess we can relax about that as well ?

 

[Soandso]

Well if YOU'VE never seen them, I guess we can all relax! phew! I feel much better now!

Have you seen women be raped? If not, I guess we can relax about that as well ?

I see women who have been raped every day as I know women personally who have told me about it. Friends and family. It's a woefully and regrettably common experience in American society. Is that really the example you want to go with?

Again, what I want to see is actual examples of "many" male presenting folks going into women's restrooms like it's normal without any kind of blowback. Even fully transitioned trans men would face backlash if they tried that! Johnny does that often enough, he's going to jail

You're fear mongering

 

[Alien826]

Well, on a course I was on recently there were two people who identified as women who were undergoing a transition process and who admitted they were still classified as male until it was complete. One was quite jokey about it and said they'd had flak. Neither were interested in talking about sex or gender as a social construct or the like and both were affable people.

I'm live and let live and have had no qualms or identity crises where it comes to my gender or sexuality. Male and straight. Not entirely into political correctness either but I do acknowledge that others struggle with identity issues that don't equate to activism. Same arguments been tried about 'gay agendas' and stuff.

This illustrates something I have observed. I'll start with my own story. One day in the office where I worked, a manager announced that a certain man (who was not present) would be coming into work the next day dressed as a woman. He explained that he was transitioning to identifying as female and explained that he had to dress and live as a woman for a year before any kind of surgery could be done. We all listened politely, and the next day he arrived (looking pretty hot I must say) in a dress and a wig. Nobody made any big deal of it. This was in the 1980s, in the UK. The key there was a sensible explanation being given to reasonable people, with nobody trying to stir up hatred of the poor guy.

To get to my point, I find the way these things go is first a knee jerk reaction against the "deviants", then when the sky doesn't fall, most people shrug and get on with their lives and the previously maligned group is generally accepted. Examples are homosexuals and gay marriage.

The problem arises when a loud group fastens on whatever it is to stir up hatred to further some agenda. Trans people should be in the first stage of what I described (knee jerk opposition), with the second stage (acceptance and indifference) starting to emerge as cases of crazed males invading women's toilets didn't occur. Unfortunately it's been fastened on by politically motivated people to get votes. I'll anticipate a response by saying that an extreme defensive posture by so called TRAs is understandable but doesn't help. I don't want to speak for people that I don't personally know but I'll bet that the average trans person would say something like "For God's sake just leave us alone!"

 

[icehorse]

Again, what I want to see is actual examples of "many" male presenting folks going into women's restrooms like it's normal without any kind of blowback.

What I'm inferring from this response is that since YOU can't foresee this as a problem, we should just wait and watch society devolve a bit and then take action?

 

[Soandso]

What I'm inferring from this response is that since YOU can't foresee this as a problem, we should just wait and watch society devolve a bit and then take action?

According to what? Where can we look at in the world and see this "devolvement" happening? Sound evidence is what separates good reasoning from slippery slope fallacies. People said society would crumble if black people were allowed to mix with white people in this country, yet we have yet to see that unfold. They also said the military would crumble if gay/lesbian people were allowed to serve, yet our military is still on a whole other level to this day

Society does what it wants as time goes on as it always has. Thankfully I've seen more freedoms and equality and less hatred and violence unfold as time moves on. Seems people are growing more interested in seeking understanding and peace than reactionism and fear, so let's hope it keeps heading that way further down the line. One can hope, at least

 

[icehorse]

According to what? Where can we look at in the world and see this "devolvement" happening? Sound evidence is what separates good reasoning from slippery slope fallacies. People said society would crumble if black people were allowed to mix with white people in this country, yet we have yet to see that unfold. They also said the military would crumble if gay/lesbian people were allowed to serve, yet our military is still on a whole other level to this day

Society does what it wants as time goes on as it always has. Thankfully I've seen more freedoms and equality and less hatred and violence unfold as time moves on. Seems people are growing more interested in seeking understanding and peace than reactionism and fear, so let's hope it keeps heading that way further down the line. One can hope, at least

We're mostly agreed, and I appreciate your hopefulness.

But at the same time I see many forces moving us away from using common sense.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Did someone mention the term Gender Fluid?

I identify as that right now. So I may be able to comment on it if that's a current subject.

 

[Secret Chief]

Did someone mention the term Gender Fluid?

I identify as that right now. So I may be able to comment on it if that's a current subject.

Assuming you're breathing, you're permitted to opine.

 

[anna.]

Here's another way to look at this: We're all debating each other. You're never the final arbiter and neither am I.

I already look at it this way.

As far as I know, we're meant to be debating IDEAS. We're not meant to be criticizing other posters. So I could see that I might be overloading the word "slur" too much. But my intention is to point out when the debate drifts from ideas to posters.

I think you are overloading the word. But that's just my observation, not a prescription for you. Probably most of us have been having online discussions for many years now, and while I agree with, and aspire to debating ideas and not posters, I also think that having someone tell you you're being unreasonable (whether you are or not, whether their opinion or yours) is an observation, and not a slur. When you cry slur all the time it starts to sound a bit like crying wolf.

So being told I'm "unreasonable", is very assumptive, no? It implies that the accuser imagines themselves to be the arbiter. It presupposes that the accuser is "right". We're debating complex ideas. We're often doing it in near real time. Miscommunications are rampant. That's why I've been trying to steelman my opponents more, as a way to make sure we're at least understanding each other. We can understand and still disagree, right?

No it doesn't. In fact, it implies that you've assumed for the "accuser" that you know how they imagine themselves. See how it goes both ways?

By the way, overusing the term steelmanning reminds me of the old writing adage "show but don't tell."

So, for example, if someone cannot steelman my arguments, how on earth can they call me illogical? If they cannot steelman me, they don't yet understand my points. Again, steelmanning is NOT agreeing, it's understanding.


We both have our personal anecdotes. I have a wife and two daughters that I'm concerned about. I have women friends I've talked to, who have volunteered their concerns to me. You do not represent all women, and neither do I. But I do have common sense to fall back on. Why has society created safe spaces for women in the first place? Perhaps you're not concerned BECAUSE you've been fortunate enough to never experience being assaulted? My wife has been!

I don't recall anyone asking me to provide citations for that particular claim. But I understand you're making a broader point.

So let's spin this around a bit: You and I are debating an issue that's important to both of us. My goal is to find better solutions, it's NOT to win the debate. I assume that's where you're coming from as well, to me that's an aspect of good faith. So if you truly care about this issue, and you hear a claim you've never heard before, you could choose to say to yourself "hmmm, I better go do 5 minutes of homework". FWIW, I do this ALL THE TIME in these conversations.

We do all have our personal anecdotes. And like many women, I have my own stories of unwanted physical harassment and more than that, which I'm not inclined to discuss with you. None of those incidents came from a transgender woman so no, I'm not afraid to use the women's restroom. If there were a reason to use caution, it would be, for example, using a park restroom at night or in a secluded location. But would I be afraid of a transgender woman? No. I'd be afraid of a man. And for good reason.

I don't have to spin anything around to tell you I'm not here to win debates. At all. Even if you'd be inclined to assume my intentions. I'm here to have discussions, offer my POV, learn new ideas, share my agreement, and yes, my disagreement. Don't question my good faith and I won't question yours. And no, it's a very well accepted part of debate that if you make the claim, you should be prepared to support it. If you expect others to carry your water, then you can also expect that people will take your allegations as unsupported, and even unsupportable.

 

[metis]

My concern is that some trans women no longer care about looking like women. So this normalizes the idea that people-who-look-like-men can now enter into women's safe spaces (restrooms, locker rooms, shelters, safe houses), without causing alarm.

You're avoiding my question: Are you going to check everyone's "equipment" before they enter a women's restroom? a "potty patrol"? Have you ever been into a unisex bathroom? I have. It's no big deal!!!

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Assuming you're breathing, you're permitted to opine.

I think that many of the cases where people appear to be men but identify as women and act inappropriately, or people appear to be women but identify as men and act inappropriately, and other situations where people switch their gender and attract public attention, are actually non-binary people. For example, a trans woman who keeps a beard and insists on it might claim to be trans, but they seem more like non-binary to me.

As for how I view people who are gender fluid... Most of the ones I've met don't change their physical appearance that much in the way that some of these stories do, at least not to draw much attention to themselves. They might look like a woman one month, then look like a man the next, in some cases. They might also look like a man or woman only, but experiment with different pronouns, even for longer periods of time. But many of these stories, including the ones about people with lipstick and beards, are actually non-binary people. There are even some non-binary people who trans people wouldn't really welcome in their spaces - for reasons. Some non-binary people do fit well in trans spaces. But others, can sometimes have some offensive and overly simplistic views, so it's not always clear-cut.

 

[Alien826]

I think you are. But that's just my observation, not a prescription for you. Probably most of us have been having online discussions for many years now, and while I agree with, and aspire to debating ideas and not posters, I also think that having someone tell you you're being unreasonable (whether you are or not, whether their opinion or yours) is an observation, and not a slur. When you cry slur all the time it starts to sound a bit like crying wolf.

If I may interject, I would draw the line where the statement addresses the person rather than the action. "You are being unreasonable" is about the action, or statement. I wouldn't take offense at that, we are all unreasonable at times and the subjectivity is generally implied. "You are an unreasonable person" is offensive.

Incidentally, most of us make statements in debate where "in my opinion" is understood. It gets tiresome to add that qualification to everything we say, and we leave it to the reader to understand that it is implied.