This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Sorry, I misunderstood that part about "I could make things uncomfortable for you." But as I said, I would not intentionally misgender you. I wouldn't tell you "I believe trans women are men" (even if it wouldn't bring HR down on me). I would, however, assume you have a certain set of beliefs and attitudes that make it very risky to draw attention to oneself as potentially not trans-affirming. I realize this might be unfair, but that's how things work nowadays.
Sounds like bullying, and those guys were assholes, and in an ideal world it wouldn't happen, but in the real world kids have to put up with a lot of shit they shouldn't have to. We mostly expect kids to grow out of that behavior, and adults not to have to put up with it.
But the problem is we don't treat trans women who wave their penises around in locker rooms as criminals. Unless they're literally committing assault, someone who does that, even if very blatantly doing it as a display of dominance and exhibitionism, mostly can't be restricted in any way.
A man who goes out of his way to show his penis to a little boy in a locker room might not technically commit a crime, but ya know, people would know and recognize what is happening and definitely take action. Because he's a bad actor and we can identify bad actors. But we are not supposed to identify trans people as being bad actors even when it's pretty obvious that's what they are. The trans woman strutting around with her cock on full display in the women's locker room is doing it to make women uncomfortable, and women who have reported feeling uncomfortable have been told they have no grievance (or even been kicked out themselves).
This isn't comparable to inadvertently getting a glimpse of your neighbor's dick while standing at a trough urinal.
I don't, and I think generally speaking people should be able to use the restroom they "identify" with, and yeah, that means maybe some people are uncomfortable seeing someone who doesn't clock as the "right" sex in their restroom. My point was that I think this woman was being a bad actor (in a very small way). I believe she wanted to make me and other men uncomfortable to make some sort of point. I could be uncharitable in my interpretation of the situation (there are other explanations - she genuinely identifies as male or non-binary, she didn't know which restroom she walked into and she really had to go, she thinks gender is stupid and genuinely thinks no one should care about that, etc.) but it made me think that was a tiny sample of what a woman would feel like if someone with a dick wanted to make sure she saw it in the women's room. I just didn't understand why she didn't use the women's room.
There is probably at least one. But come on, are you not seeing the same news reports I have? How many women getting assaulted/impregnated by a trans woman would be enough to make it a problem? (And yes, ideally there should be zero sexual assaults in prison regardless of sex, but I don't see why we should make an already bad situation even more exploitable by predators.)
I would not agree that having vaginoplasty makes you female (I will still consider them a male who had surgery, sorry), but I would consider it enough of a commitment to living as a woman that women's prison would be more appropriate.
So, if I'm correct: You're fine using my preferred pronouns, letting me use the restroom I "identify" with, and (post-surgery) using the "appropriate" locker rooms and prisons?
At that point, wouldn't it be easier to just say "female", though? Like, except for my ability to join a sports team (I'm too old for that stuff anyway), I look like a duck, I quack like a duck, why not just call me a duck?
If we were to follow this logic to its ultimate conclusion, seemingly it would mean we should consider anyone who mimics the outward appearance and behavioural standards of a group to be a part of that group. Is that something you'd endorse?
Correct me if I'm wrong though, but mainstream progressives don't appear to accept this line of argument in regards to any social construct besides gender. When white college professors are exposed as having falsely claimed to be Amerindian despite lacking any Native DNA or cultural background, they're typically considered to have committed a grave act of cultural appropriation and transgressed against a marginalised group, even though evidently they quacked and looked enough like a duck to convincingly pass as one for several years in some cases.
If we were to apply the current trans self-ID paradigm to the situation, they needn't even have done that; just claiming to be Native should have been enough for them to be considered valid, even if they made no changes to their appearance or behaviour at all. Likewise, an American weeb who claims to be Japanese shouldn't be a valid target of mockery, but every bit as Japanese as an actual born-and-raised Japanese, who has no right to object.
If we're going to so strictly police the boundaries of every other social construct, and say that there is an actual essentialist element or at least one of lived experience required to qualify as part of it, why are we expected to make an exception for gender?
Maybe you think mainstream progressives just don't go far enough and follow their logic to its conclusion here, or maybe the idea is that there are good political reasons to police the boundaries of race; in practice a white man who self-IDs as black isn't going to be perceived as such and so won't be subject to the same struggles actual black people face. But people who object to trans ideology might say the same, that the struggles of a transwoman are not those of a cis woman and so this is a valid reason to police the boundaries of womanhood, too.
That said, personally I am sympathetic to the idea that it may ultimately not matter much if transwomen are granted access to women's changing rooms, sports and prisons, provided they've undergone full medical transition at least. But if this is the reasoning as to why trans self-ID is valid, then fundamentally there is no philosophical reason full ethnic self-ID shouldn't be valid too; it's simply politically inconvenient currently where trans self-ID isn't.
Ultimately though I think if we take this radical self-ID paradigm seriously, it implies people should be able to adopt absolutely any identity they like and be considered valid immediately, no questions asked. But socially constructed identities are an extremely helpful method used to distinguish between categories of people who have salient material differences from one another, so we can't just cease to police all their boundaries.
I think there's a large contingent of mixed-race people who "pass" as one race or another without any real controversy. No one seems particularly concerned that light-skinned black people might "pass" as white, and no one seems to object to calling Italians white anymore.
I think, outside that category, you mostly only find "bad actors" who are looking to abuse the system.
If it turns out that 1% of the population really does, in good faith, identify as "trans-racial" and undergoes permanent surgical alteration to achieve that... I mean, wild, didn't see that coming, but... okay, we probably should accept that. And maybe we were being dicks for mocking those "drop of Native American blood" types. But when it's a handful of people who are pretty clearly just trying to gain an advantage... I don't see any particular reason we need to accept that?
I also think on a systemic level, we give advantages to women because they are currently threatened, and the best good comes from extending those protections to trans women. Conversely, racial affirmative action is meant to adjust for inequalities from the past: an unequal starting position. So extending those protections to someone who did not actually have that unequal starting position doesn't make any sense. (I'm totally open to the idea that racial affirmative action is a failure, and we should focus on things like "actually born in poverty" instead. Racial justice isn't my area of expertise.)
It's worth noting that I'm focusing on a more moderate trans agenda here: I expect trans women to go on HRT, try to pass as female socially, and eventually undergo surgery. I think there's benefits to protecting people who are only partway through that process, but the goal is to protect people who are actually undergoing the process. You can't just stop at "self identifying" if you want society to accept you; you've got to meet people halfway.
Apologies for the late reply. It's true of course that there are mixed-race people who pass as one side of their ancestry or another without controversy, but even in many trans-friendly spaces the notion that an unambiguously white man could become black or vice versa is very much not accepted. I think this indicates that for race at least people feel there is an essentialist component based on ancestry, just as many believe gender has an essentialist component based on sex, which is the sticking point.
I do agree that if people want to have surgery to look like another race or ethnicity, this should be allowed, but I wouldn't consider them to truly be of that ethnicity nor begrudge members of that ethnic group for not accepting them as such based on lack of ancestry or similar experiences, which I think is similar to the view many have on transgender issues, too. When you reject the need for sex as a component of gender, it can feel as if you're undermining a useful method of categorisation for distinguishing between materially different kinds of people, who have different needs based on that material distinction.
That said while I definitely believe private sex-segregated spaces should exist, I'm open to the idea that full medical transition may make it viable to segregate by gender instead in some cases, if the data shows it can mostly close the physical gaps between cis and trans people. Segregation is also based partly on cultural/psychological differences between men and women, though, and anecdotally it does appear as if many transwomen retain some masculine cultural/psychological traits. To be clear I don't think transwomen are any more perverted compared to cis men or anything like that, possibly less due to oestrogen's effect, but if they retain aspects of male sexuality and the male gaze you can see how women might object to that in changing rooms and the like.
For what it's worth I think the more moderate trans agenda you mention was one society was broadly on board with, but whatever your personal views we're obviously past that paradigm now, which has spurred a backlash. From what I recall about a decade ago there was a bit more casual transphobia, i.e. people would casually refer to transwomen as men, but many people didn't care a great deal about the issue and were willing to be basically tolerant. I don't know if you'd consider that better or worse than what we have today, with greater trans visibility alongside a larger culture war around the issue.
That all seems quite fair to me. I think a lot of what I've been curious about is whether the backlash is "really" about more permissive laws, or if it's just that we've become a lot more visible. It's not an easy question to explore in most spaces! TERFs mostly seem disgusted by our very existence and don't want to compromise at all. The trans community is unfortunately dominated by a lot of extremists yelling everyone else down. And of course, it's the sort of conversation where society likes to yell and scream at anyone who dares express the "wrong" opinion, so most people are just unwilling to actually speak their mind.
So, thanks for being part of a cool community where I could actually hold this conversation, and find it productive :)
Thank you as well, I was a little worried it'd come across as harsh. I do sympathise with the reservations many have about the trans issue obviously but the hysteria over trans people supposedly all being paedo groomers is really disgusting, and probably does more to move me in a more trans-friendly direction than any actual pro-trans argument. I'm sure many people feel the same way. All the best.
More options
Context Copy link
I think TERFs are actually an example of the strained tolerance that @Spez1alEd spoke of. Most TERFs, if you actually talk to them, will tell you a story of having once been a pro-trans liberal or radical feminist who accepted trans womens' claims at face value and even thought they were "breaking the gender binary" and thus defying the Patriarchy. Then, for various reasons (many of which have been discussed here) they hit "peak trans" (a phrase they use akin to their "redpill moment") and started seeing trans women as men appropriating women's spaces.
Historically there may have been some TERFs who were always vehemently anti-trans, but radical feminists were (and to some degree still are) pretty divided on the trans issue. It's not as simple as "They're just disgusted by us and won't compromise."
I would argue JK Rowling (not really a TERF but for some reason now held up as the TERF Queen) falls into this category -- she was tolerant of trans people until she started questioning the ideology, and even after her infamous letter she was still clearly supportive of the right of trans women to live as women - just not the right to be legally considered women. To the degree she's become hardened and more belligerent in her stance now, it's probably from years of relentless attacks online - trans activists seem disgusted by her very existence and don't want to compromise at all.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I wouldn't say I am "fine" with it. I would be willing to use your preferred pronouns out of politeness, but mentally I'm always going to be annoyed at having to play along with (what I consider to be) your delusion. I am not one of those people who'd go out of my way to misgender you just to rub it in your face that I don't accept your self-identification, but I consider it to be a polite fiction we're all playing along with.
As for you using female restrooms, locker rooms and (assuming you lack a penis and are on HRT) prisons? Yeah, I guess, with the significant caveat that I think being treated as your preferred gender should be a privilege, not a human right, and it should be revokeable in the case of bad faith charlatans.
The distinction between sex and gender has been discussed upthread. Many people are against recognizing this distinction; I am less so. I'd be willing to call you a woman (again, with the caveat that, you know, I don't really think of you as a woman), but "female" should have a meaning grounded in biological reality. My question is if you can just identify as "female," what word should we use to distinguish between the two (2) human sexes? Because I ain't calling people "uterus-havers" and "penis-havers."
Do you particularly think there's likely to be bad faith charlatans that take HRT for years, socially transition, update their legal paperwork, and have surgery? I feel like if you're willing to put that much work into something, we can assume good faith. (I can see how bad faith actors would enjoy "absolutely zero requirements", obviously)
Again, in the "post-surgical" domain, what would even qualify as bad faith? Are we willing to apply that standard to cis-women who behave the same way?
(For the pre-surgical domain, things get complicated; I don't think "zero gatekeeping" is the right answer, at least currently)
I mean, for a medical form, "Which of the following do you have: [ ] breasts, [ ] uterus, [ ] vagina, [ ] penis" doesn't seem particularly unreasonable?
I'm fine calling it "men" and "women's" sports; plenty of words have different definitions in different contexts.
I think dating apps should probably sort "pre-op trans-women" into a different category, because people obviously care about penis -vs- vagina when it comes to dating.
I don't think I'm really the person to ask about post-op; obviously some people care about fertility, but cis-women can also be infertile. So, to me, this mostly depends on whether a surgical vagina is "acceptable" for people who aren't looking for fertility. The general consensus I've seen is that modern surgery does quite well there, but I'm obviously in a giant biased bubble.
Taking HRT for years and getting surgery would be a pretty serious show of commitment. Almost all the bad faith cases I can think of are men who made minimal or no efforts beyond updating their paperwork.
If I, as a man, want to declare myself a woman, what requirements would you place on me to be considered actually a woman?
So you basically want to abolish the distinction between sexes in normal English usage? Or else make "male" and "female" arbitrary labels that can be applied to anyone, according to how they identify? But definitely not words that distinguish between male humans and female humans as understood by biological science?
They care about more than that. See, this is why I question the sincerity of even moderate trans people. I mean, if I am reading you correctly, you don't think someone should be able to filter out post-op trans women. Or if they do, you think that's some sort of irrational bigotry and they need to be identified as the transphobic bigots they are. Do you really, seriously think that a post-op trans woman is indistinguishable from a cis woman? I don't mean "Might pass in social situations." I mean a man who has actually been with women before could get intimate with a trans woman and not know the difference? Even if we stipulate that there might be some .1% of trans girls who could actually pass in that situation, surely you know that the other 99% absolutely will not. But as I understand it, most dating apps now basically don't allow either straight men or lesbians to say "No trans women, sorry," and if you try you will be kicked off. (Correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't used dating apps in forever.)
I mean, me personally? I don't care. Join the club. Self identification 100%
But just because I don't care doesn't mean other people don't have valid concerns, so I figure it's a social negotiation to find a contract that can at least satisfy the majority of people (since, obviously, you're never going to satisfy everyone)
I think if you've gone through the trouble of getting on HRT and consulting a doctor, it's probably safe to let you use the bathroom - the big controversies seem to be about sports and lockers. So not quite "just self identification", but a pretty low bar.
I think once someone has had surgery, the only controversy should be sports (which we've already covered)
I feel like "for a medical form" and "normal English usage" are pretty clearly two different domains.
I think in practice, most everyone uses "female" to mean "person I perceive as female" (or who they're humoring), whether they mean to or not. Lots of transphobic people call me "ma'am". Normal English usage, outside of dating and athletics, is about identifying people - and that's all about gender presentation. If you tell the cops they are looking for a guy, they are not going to find me.
Yes, the empirical observation within the post-op community is that it's not an issue. As good as the real thing! Okay, maybe not exactly as good, on average, but well within the cis range, certainly? Vaginas come in a huge variety and most people only get intimate with a few people in their life.
Possibly the connoisseurs would weigh in and say something different, but Hugh Hefner seemed pretty trans-positive. He put trans women on the Playboy cover multiple times. I feel like if we're good enough for his tastes, then it's at least fair to say the onus is on you to show some evidence that neo-vaginas are sub-par goods?
If you can filter on whatever criteria you like, and exclude Christians and Democrats and Bisexuals, then it would seem crazy to say "oh, but you can't filter based on trans status"
But if you don't require people to actually list their religion, politics, and orientation, it would also seem crazy to say "oh, but you have to tell us if you're trans."
That said, I don't see any harm in putting post-op trans women in the "women" box.
That's rather surprising to me, and it's counter to what I have heard, but since I have never been with a trans woman and am not about to go try one, maybe it's true. I can't help suspecting some self-delusion there, the same sort that I think leads trans women to think they pass better than they do. Of all the trans women I've ever seen, very few would fool me even with their clothes on, and those mostly with perfect lighting and a ton of makeup. ("But what about the ones you didn't notice because they fooled you?" you will ask, and I admit that's possible, but given that even the "really hot, passes well" ones like Blaire White still have a certain uncanny effect about them that you can't unsee once you notice it, I remain skeptical.)
But maybe it's true. Maybe most men wouldn't be able to tell the difference. I suppose eventually the technology will improve to the point where this is true.
I don't think people should be required to state they are trans on dating apps, but I think people should be allowed to say they don't want to date trans people without being called bigots or booted off the app. There are apps just for Christian dating, for various ethnic groups, for conservatives, for Democrats, etc. They can't really keep others out, but it's kind of obnoxious and seems counterproductive to demand attention from people who clearly don't want you. Yet trans women keep doing this. Why? (Yes, that's an Al Jazeera link. I find that amusing.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
So can we also safely assume that the man strutting around with their cock on full display in the men's locker room is also a bad actor?
Is "strutting around naked" really an unusual thing to do in a locker room? Are your genitalia somehow NOT "on full display" while you shower? We have had very different experiences of the men's locker rooms if you've never seen another guy's cock.
I feel like it's pretty easy to come up with an alternate explanation for why someone might be naked in the locker room, beyond "wanting to make others uncomfortable". But if we really do care about comfort, why not move to single stall designs so that no one has to see unwanted genitalia?
Do you have any statistics there? Are trans women more dangerous than cis women? Are trans women more dangerous than cis men? All the statistics I've seen about assault and rape say that intimate partners are the major threat, not strangers in bathrooms.
I mean, realistically, probably not! Media is a massive bubble of filters, there's dozens of sources out there, and we probably live in different parts of the world.
If I want to understand an issue, I consider news a terrible way to learn. Keep in mind that news reports are mostly heat, not light - the very fact that it made the news means it's unusual enough to report on that event.
Yes.
Post-op trans women are 18 times more likely to be convicted of a violent crime (including rape and sexual assault) than cis women.
Okay, so... trans women are no more of a threat than trans men, or cis men are? Are you suggesting we also kick trans men out of the bathrooms?
Isn't it odd that trans women don't commit crimes any more often, despite having access to bathrooms and locker rooms? If trans women and cis men are equally violent and criminal, that suggests that we don't need gendered locker rooms or bathrooms at all - there's literally no change in crime rate when we let people use the bathroom they want.
That's neat information, thank you (I am honestly surprised to learn hormones and even surgery don't affect that for MtF but do for FtM. I had assumed things would be more symmetric!)
I'm guessing this study isn't the one you were referring to? Or are there a lot of post-op trans women who don't bother to get a gender recognition certificate? I don't know the UK that well.
Either way, 76 trans offenders vs 13,234 cis male offenders makes me think there is, once again, not much evidence that trans people are actually that much of a threat. That seems like you've got some lopsided statistics from a small sample group (especially since, again: "Prisoners with a gender recognition certificate were not counted as transgender")
A bit of a tangent, but: "Made to penetrate" is now widely regarded as a form of rape, and it turns out that when you don't explicitly gender the crime, the gender bias is vastly weaker. At least in the US, the male:female rape rate is somewhere near 1:1, maybe 2:1. Hardly something women are innocent of. It's a bit difficult to take gendered claims seriously, when you've cheated and used a definition that explicitly excludes cis female offenders.
I have zero interest in addressing this until a source is provided. (Though I must say, I find it interesting that you're recycling manosphere/MRA talking points from a decade ago.)
I thought "female" just meant "anyone who looks like a woman, or who gets addressed as ma'am"? A definition which would include many trans women who haven't undergone bottom surgery, and who are hence perfectly capable of raping people? Sounds like you know exactly what "female" really means when it suits you.
"And now the real surprise: when asked about experiences in the last 12 months, men reported being “made to penetrate”—either by physical force or due to intoxication—at virtually the same rates as women reported rape (both 1.1 percent in 2010, and 1.7 and 1.6 respectively in 2011)."
https://time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers/
I feel like the CDC is a pretty good source.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8360364/
Or maybe the NIH?
At least for me, the Google Search "made to penetrate" produces quite a few other good sources
People I dislike are often right about things! That's the benefit of debate; sometimes it turns out the facts don't actually align with your beliefs, so you change your mind. I was pretty blown away when I first ran into this, but it would certainly seem like Feminist anti-rape efforts have done a remarkable job leveling the playing field in recent years.
I think the word has like six different definitions, and everyone handles that just fine for every other English word. But it's still cheating when 99% of the category is incapable of the crime. I don't think you're actually willing to count trans women as women so it's hardly a "gotcha", just pedantry about how I use language. I don't think you're really confused here, you're just trying to score petty debate club points.
If you simply want to chide me for a minor slip in language... okay, fine. I'll go edit it since it's so incredibly important to you
Sorry, but when you're telling me that my definitions of the words "woman" and "female" are wrong and I should be using your definitions instead (and our definitions are mutually exclusive), I am absolutely going to pull you up on it when you start using words in a fashion which is not remotely consistent with the definition you yourself are advocating for. That's not pedantry, that's just consistency.
I have never and will never be persuaded by passive-aggressive whining of this sort. It has no place here.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Maybe, though I'd be more inclined to think he's just socially oblivious. Generally speaking, men aren't threatened by seeing other guys' cocks.
Walking naked from the shower to your locker, standing naked under the hair dryer, maybe standing naked in front of the mirror while you do your grooming, not really. But ambling around the room sporting an erection (a scenario I've read about happening more than once) would definitely strike me as "weird" if done to other men, and "bordering on threatening" if done to women.
I'm just saying I think if I saw a naked guy in a locker room, I could distinguish between "He is naked because he's in the process of dressing/undressing/showering" and "He is naked because he really wants me to see him naked."
My bad for the confusion there - I was specifically talking about trans women assaulting women in prison.
This is fair, which is why I have tried to reserve some judgment. I don't like LibsOfTikTok style nutpicking, finding the very worst and most deranged examples of trans people and blasting them as examples of what "trans people" are like. Graham Linehan does the same thing - for all that I sympathize with a lot of his grievances, "Here's a trans person who committed a crime" is like 90% of his output at this point.
That said, I'd be less cynical about trans rights if every trans person who does act in bad faith didn't seem to be a hill that trans activists are willing to die on defending.
This becomes much more sympathetic when the media is actively trying to mislead via the headlines of the "Brighton woman guilty of flashing genitals" variety.
It's unfortunate that we have to depend on Twitter-deranged people for counter-messaging but it really shouldn't be allowed to stand imo.
More options
Context Copy link
Again, this seems like heat instead of light if we're talking about "this happened once". I'm sure there's been guys with erections in the men's locker room at least once as well? Sometimes those things happen involuntarily, and it's terribly embarrassing. I remember that much from my time as a guy.
Yeah, there we agree. I've certainly met reasonable trans people, but they're quieter. Even us trans women get shouted down by the loud ones if we try to be moderate, which is part of why I'm here.
In case it's not clear: if someone is deliberately making women uncomfortable, I think we should have procedures to deal with that. I don't think these procedures need to be gendered - I think women making other women uncomfortable, and men making other men uncomfortable is also a reality you've got to deal with there.
At the same time, I think a lot of people try to sensationalize the slightest incident, like "simply being naked", so I'm going to be slow to condemn any specific individual without knowing the full details. In general I tend to be a very "innocent until proven guilty" sort who doesn't like the idea of trying people in the public spotlight.
I mean, definitely more than once. Graham Linehan and various TERFs have lengthy "This never happens" lists of times that happened. I don't because that's not my crusade, but I have certainly read about it happening enough that I don't think you can dismiss these as "Just that one crazy guy and not a pattern."
C'mon, this is disingenuous. You know we are not talking about someone accidentally popping a boner.
Okay, but how? Because in the case of our boner-popping trans woman making women uncomfortable in the locker room, "her" first line of defense will be "Of course I didn't have control over it and I wasn't doing it deliberately to cause anyone discomfort" (which would be hard to disprove) and her second line of defense will be "Women just need to get over seeing female penises in the locker room." It's easy to say "We should just have procedures to deal with bad actors," but we do. The problem is that trans (or trans-pretending) bad actors, specifically, are exploiting gaps in those procedures. A man who walks into a woman's locker room and waves his penis around will be dealt with quickly. A man who walks into a woman's locker room and waves his penis around and when challenged, says he's a woman and you're being transphobic - well, how do you suggest we deal with that? Because clearly "Use common sense and call the bearded dude with the smirk out for what he is" doesn't work.
I understand your desire to extend them the benefit of the doubt. But again, once you've declared that literally anyone can identify as a woman, especially if they don't have to prove they've made an effort at transitioning or even passing, how do you keep the bearded guy with a smirk out of the locker room? Maybe he really does identify as a woman and that smirk is the euphoria of finally venturing into the space she belongs? Sure, mostly these are sensationalized examples, but they happen - repeatedly - and when we aren't even allowed to accuse someone of being fake or "transitioning" for disingenuous purposes, aren't allowed to impose conditions or gatekeeping, you get huge loopholes that predators can and will exploit. Thus the anger you are seeing now.
I mean, I think it is a fair point to say "some of these stories are sensationalist bullshit, trying to tar ordinary human behavior simply because the person hates trans people." I think it is equally valid to say "yes, but there are also real bad actors out there."
The point is, the number of bad actors is not equal to the number of stories out there.
It is really amazingly easy to put together a very long list of horrible things that basically any group has done. I'm absolutely positive I could give you a list of a hundred times TERFs made false accusations, or at least accusations with outrageously little evidence behind them. That does not mean that every TERF claim is false, of course, or even that most of them are.
It just means that in a world with billions of people in it, we can easily create an overwhelmingly large list.
The only antidote I know of for this is numbers. If you're worried about a group of anecdotes, that's what, 100, 200 people? I'm going to suggest you build a functional civilization and sort out those individuals. There's 66 million people in the UK, and you're really telling me you can't handle 100 criminals?
And, I mean, if you can't handle them, that's hardly the fault of trans people, is it? We're, what 0.5% of the population or so? I hardly think there's anywhere near enough of us to stop much of anything. Seems unfair to prevent the other 299,900 of us from peeing in peace just because you can't deal with the hundred that are off fucking everything up for everyone. Certainly, we don't want the bad actors either - they're making everything awful for the rest of us.
(The converse of all of this, of course, is that if you've got numbers showing "Hey, when we give men access to women's restrooms, the rate rape doubles" or "90% of non-surgical trans people are bad actors who haven't socially transitioned", that's a completely different story!)
P.S.: Probably worth noting, every day I meet trans people online. That's at least 365/year. Of the thousands of trans people I've known, I've heard credible allegations against exactly 3 of them. Each time, it's for harming other trans folk. The vast majority of trans people I meet either change in a stall, are post-op, or most frequently: avoid the situation entirely because it's too stressful. I'm getting quite the opposite message you get!
Obviously, I don't think this is proof that all trans people are pure and pristine - I'm just saying, I've probably got 100x as many positive stories as you've got negative ones. It is really, really easy to produce a HUGE list when the world has so many people in it!
Absolutely true, and is probably the origin of a large share of discussions here on the Motte. People will tend make a true observation ("Blacks are lower IQ and more criminal than whites, on average"; "women tend to be hypergamous"; "Jews have disproportionate influence in Hollywood and finance") and overgeneralize to fit their biases ("Blacks are violent and stupid "; "Women are faithless sluts"; "Jews control our society").
I've already acknowledged that the sensationalized stories are, well, sensational, and I know the vast majority of trans people are not waving their penises at women or trying to get them to wax their balls, or taking medals from them in sporting events. But the fact that a small number are, and the ones who aren't will not allow any sort of guardrails that might prevent this, means unfortunately you are basically siding with the predators.
I mean, that seems unfair. I'm off in the middle saying "no, I think some guard rails are fine, obviously this 100% self-identification experiment failed". How is that siding with predators? What would I have to do to switch sides, if that's not sufficient?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link