|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 05 2023 08:26 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2023 08:13 ZeroByte13 wrote:On July 05 2023 08:00 KwarK wrote:
Of course men aren't allowed where they're not allowed. What if tomorrow I say I'm a woman - and maybe I actually feel like one, I mean who out of the people in the bathroom can prove I'm not one... - am I allowed now? To the women in the bathroom there's absolutely no difference between the day before and the day after, I look the same and behave the same. Is it about who I think/say I am or who I'm passing as? This is a sincere question, in a good faith. What does your ID say? Legally changing your gender is a serious time and effort commitment that involves years of medical treatment, invasive operations, a lot of societal discrimination, and frequently rejection and exile from your friend and family circle. People don't do it on a whim. So no, in that situation they would go to the staff and say that there's a man in the women's bathrooms though presumably all you'd be doing in there is taking a shit or whatever. If you weren't making a scene I would expect a member of staff to tell you not to do that and that'd be the end of it, regardless of whether or not you were trans. Men shitting in the women's bathroom isn't actually illegal, it's perfectly reasonable if you have to go and there's an issue with the men's or whatever. The motive matters. If you were taking photos or whatever then that'd be illegal regardless of whether you were trans. Cis women can't go taking upskirts in bathrooms. If you protested and insisted you were trans I'd expect they'd ask to see your ID and would learn that you weren't trans, you were just an asshole. In this instance you're completely male passing, your legal gender would be male, and you'd obviously not be trans so your motive would be purely bad faith. Trans people don't do what you're describing. But this is all completely absurd. It doesn't happen. If you decided to make a point and spend years of work tricking doctors into cutting off your dick or whatever then legally changed your gender and made it into the bathrooms only to announce that you were just pretending to be trans then more power to you I guess.
Bolded - meanwhile:
https://selfhelp.courts.ca.gov/gender-recognition/gender-name-adult#:~:text=In California, you can ask,takes up to 2 months.
"In California, you can ask the court for an order recognizing your gender change and changing your legal name. To do this, you file a petition with the court and get a decree. The process generally takes up to 2 months."
https://transequality.org/documents/state/new-york
"New York City will update the gender marker on a birth certificate to male, female, or X upon self-attestation by the applicant of their gender, no medical documentation required."
|
|
|
Now I dont exactly know how this works and I was hoping someone can explain. There is this ruling from 4th July (I'll provide links and conclusion further down) It is ruling of: "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MONROE DIVISION" vs "JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR., ET AL" (goverment/administration, it seems).
Does this effectively do anything, or is it more " oh they ruled that... so what?"
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520.294.0.pdf
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520.293.0_1.pdf
Conclusion:
"The Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits in establishing that the Government has
used its power to silence the opposition. Opposition to COVID-19 vaccines; opposition to
COVID-19 masking and lockdowns; opposition to the lab-leak theory of COVID-19; opposition
to the validity of the 2020 election; opposition to President Biden’s policies; statements that the
Hunter Biden laptop story was true; and opposition to policies of the government officials in
power. All were suppressed. It is quite telling that each example or category of suppressed speech
was conservative in nature. This targeted suppression of conservative ideas is a perfect example
of viewpoint discrimination of political speech. American citizens have the right to engage in free
debate about the significant issues affecting the country.
Although this case is still relatively young, and at this stage the Court is only examining it
in terms of Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits, the evidence produced thus far depicts
an almost dystopian scenario. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a period perhaps best
characterized by widespread doubt and uncertainty, the United States Government seems to have
assumed a role similar to an Orwellian “Ministry of Truth.”721
The Plaintiffs have presented substantial evidence in support of their claims that they were
the victims of a far-reaching and widespread censorship campaign. This court finds that they are
likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment free speech claim against the Defendants.
Therefore, a preliminary injunction should issue immediately against the Defendants as set out
herein. The Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. No. 10] is GRANTED IN PART
and DENIED IN PART."
|
|
|
On July 05 2023 08:36 ZeroByte13 wrote:
But I never said or implied it was about how I feel. I feel indifferent because I'm not the one (potentially) affected.
My question was - do we know what women feel, are they ok (e.g. feel safe) with seeing male-looking people in their bathroom or lockers?
I heard from a few that they would not be happy with this, but it's an anecdotical evidence, of course. Maybe absolute majority are ok, then my concerns are based on a wrong premise.
Unless your position is "if you're not upset personally, shut up".
Then it was a pointless conversation, of course, and I'm sorry about wasting everyone's time.
While I personally don't have time to respond to your questions and perspective today, I just wanted to say that I appreciate your curiosity and concerns, and your willingness to inquire. Many people are often exasperated in this thread or operating in bad faith, and so our conversations end up being less productive than they ought to be.
|
On July 05 2023 08:00 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2023 07:41 ZeroByte13 wrote:
So if, say, I'll go to women's bathroom and they are not happy to see me there, I can safely tell them their opinions/feelings don't matter, only mine do? Because if they don't want to see me there they are bigots and they can't tell me where I should be allowed to? The women's bathroom is for women. You're presumably not one so you're not allowed in there. Same as if there was an employees only sign on the door. If you go into the mixed bathroom and the women in there aren't happy to see you there then you can safely tell them that their opinions don't matter. Not because only your opinions matter, not theirs, but because you're entitled to the use of that space. I don't know where you people come up with these strawmen. Of course men aren't allowed where they're not allowed.
Strawmen? You were just arguing that it’s fine if all locker rooms were unisex and women should just get over it if they don’t want to see people with penises in their locker room. In fact you suggested that it would be fine to do if not for the inconvenience of having to demolish all the M/F locker rooms and rebuild unisex locker rooms. When someone says women should be the ones to decide this you say “the women’s bathroom is for women.”
|
On July 05 2023 08:26 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2023 08:13 ZeroByte13 wrote:On July 05 2023 08:00 KwarK wrote:
Of course men aren't allowed where they're not allowed. What if tomorrow I say I'm a woman - and maybe I actually feel like one, I mean who out of the people in the bathroom can prove I'm not one... - am I allowed now? To the women in the bathroom there's absolutely no difference between the day before and the day after, I look the same and behave the same. Is it about who I think/say I am or who I'm passing as? This is a sincere question, in a good faith. What does your ID say? Legally changing your gender is a serious time and effort commitment that involves years of medical treatment, invasive operations, a lot of societal discrimination, and frequently rejection and exile from your friend and family circle. People don't do it on a whim. So no, in that situation they would go to the staff and say that there's a man in the women's bathrooms though presumably all you'd be doing in there is taking a shit or whatever. If you weren't making a scene I would expect a member of staff to tell you not to do that and that'd be the end of it, regardless of whether or not you were trans. Men shitting in the women's bathroom isn't actually illegal, it's perfectly reasonable if you have to go and there's an issue with the men's or whatever. The motive matters. If you were taking photos or whatever then that'd be illegal regardless of whether you were trans. Cis women can't go taking upskirts in bathrooms. If you protested and insisted you were trans I'd expect they'd ask to see your ID and would learn that you weren't trans, you were just an asshole. In this instance you're completely male passing, your legal gender would be male, and you'd obviously not be trans so your motive would be purely bad faith. Trans people don't do what you're describing. But this is all completely absurd. It doesn't happen. If you decided to make a point and spend years of work tricking doctors into cutting off your dick or whatever then legally changed your gender and made it into the bathrooms only to announce that you were just pretending to be trans then more power to you I guess.
Also just for the record you can’t tell if someone is trans by checking their ID. There are many trans people that have not gone through the legal requirements to change their gender
|
That's the strawman, yeah. You've invented straw women who are incensed about these 'private' changing stalls with glass doors and penis wallpaper.
Granted, real women likely do exist that would be uncomfortable with the idea. However, I'm not likely to listen to a dude on the internet arguing for them. Fundamentally it's a similar objection, to, say, someone arguing identity politics on behalf of PG.
|
On July 05 2023 10:14 Fleetfeet wrote:
That's the strawman, yeah. You've invented straw women who are incensed about these 'private' changing stalls with glass doors and penis wallpaper.
Granted, real women likely do exist that would be uncomfortable with the idea. However, I'm not likely to listen to a dude on the internet arguing for them. Fundamentally it's a similar objection, to, say, someone arguing identity politics on behalf of PG.
Re-read zerobytes posts again. He’s quite agnostic on whether women are incensed about this or whether they should be incensed about this. He’s simply saying women should be the ones to decide this and others are saying the opinions of women shouldn’t matter and if they have a problem with penises in their spaces they need to get over it.
|
|
|
On July 05 2023 07:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2023 02:21 BlackJack wrote:On July 04 2023 15:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2023 14:34 BlackJack wrote:On July 04 2023 11:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2023 11:10 gobbledydook wrote:On July 04 2023 10:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2023 09:58 BlackJack wrote:On July 04 2023 06:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2023 02:13 BlackJack wrote:
@Rayzda yes, I forgot to mention that the other caveat for MTF athletes competing in women’s sports besides them not being allowed to win is that there needs to be locker room accommodations made for women that may not feel comfortable undressing in front of someone with a penis. Can't anyone feel uncomfortable undressing in front of anyone, though? It's not like having a penis means you're going to harass or abuse someone with a vagina, and if you feel uncomfortable because you see a penis or a vagina then you could also just stop looking at it. Cis-women could feel uncomfortable undressing in front of trans-women... or other cis-women... or men... or non-binary people. Straight men could feel uncomfortable undressing in front of gay men or other straight men. Why not just allow locker rooms to have changing stalls with locked doors, similar to fitting rooms at clothing stores, so that anyone who wants privacy while changing can have it? Pretty much every department store I've shopped at has a single, unisex fitting area, rather than a "men's only" fitting room and a "women's only" fitting room. (This is also why I think unisex bathrooms are totally fine as well: because people can do their private, vulnerable business safely behind a locked door, and if an attack was going to happen, the sign in front of the bathroom / locker room isn't going to stop an actual predator anyway.) Why even have men and women’s locker rooms at all? Why not allow cisgendered men into womens locker rooms? As you said, just because someone has a penis doesn’t mean he is going to abuse someone with a vagina. Yes. That's exactly the point I was making, by having unisex areas with solo private changing rooms/showers for anyone who feels uncomfortable around others (regardless of sex, gender, sexual orientation, race, etc.). If you're scared of black people, or men, or gay people, or old people, or anyone else, you can use a safe, private space. You don't even need to explain why you want privacy or which demographic offends/worries you! (Not "you" personally; I mean its general use.) The main problem with this solution is space. If you have a lot of floor space, you can afford to build individual unisex toilets and changing rooms. If you operate on a small property, for example in the inner city, then you have to choose between inclusiveness and a long queue at the toilet. I think having enough space might be a valid practical concern in some areas. That being said, penises being scary is not a valid ethical concern imo. I don’t know what ethical concern means in this context but penises being scary probably is a valid concern for many women. People with penises commit the vast majority of murders, rapes, sexual assaults, voyeurism, etc. The cavalier attitude of “just because someone has a penis doesn’t mean they are going to assault you” comes off as tone-deaf to very real issues that women have to deal with. If only I had suggested safe, private, single-person stalls, and preemptively underlined it because I had a feeling you'd ignore it. Anyone can use them, from sexists to sexual assault victims. No explanation needed. You suggested single-person stalls, which may or may not be practical, while also being generally dismissive of whether women should be concerned with penises in their spaces. The stalls themselves have nothing to do with whether women should or shouldn’t be concerned with penises. Can you please elaborate on why you believe that having single-person changing room stalls "has nothing to do with" women's feelings / everyone's perceived or real vulnerabilities? The single-person stalls were suggested as a way to directly address those very issues, and so far there doesn't seem to be a significant counterpoint as to why they wouldn't work in practice (especially given the fact that they currently work just fine in any department stores or other areas that use them). Do you mean that single-person stalls don't address the underlying systemic issues against women and other demographics that need to be fixed? Because sure, I agree that it doesn't, but neither does keeping men and women separate.
It seems to be again a question of space and cost - the current system works well for most of the population, and if you turn a shared area into a series of private stalls, you massively decrease the number of people that can change at one time. For example you run a swimming pool that can take 50 swimmers per hour, then you also need changing facilities that can serve 50 swimmers per hour, and if your unisex solution decreases that by half that will not do.
Even if you have space for the nice solution, you now have to saddle construction costs. Which no business would want to pay unless they absolutely have to.
It seems that building an extra family or unisex room just for these special cases is going to be much cheaper and more realistic than converting the entire changing room.
|
On July 05 2023 07:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2023 02:21 BlackJack wrote:On July 04 2023 15:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2023 14:34 BlackJack wrote:On July 04 2023 11:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2023 11:10 gobbledydook wrote:On July 04 2023 10:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2023 09:58 BlackJack wrote:On July 04 2023 06:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2023 02:13 BlackJack wrote:
@Rayzda yes, I forgot to mention that the other caveat for MTF athletes competing in women’s sports besides them not being allowed to win is that there needs to be locker room accommodations made for women that may not feel comfortable undressing in front of someone with a penis. Can't anyone feel uncomfortable undressing in front of anyone, though? It's not like having a penis means you're going to harass or abuse someone with a vagina, and if you feel uncomfortable because you see a penis or a vagina then you could also just stop looking at it. Cis-women could feel uncomfortable undressing in front of trans-women... or other cis-women... or men... or non-binary people. Straight men could feel uncomfortable undressing in front of gay men or other straight men. Why not just allow locker rooms to have changing stalls with locked doors, similar to fitting rooms at clothing stores, so that anyone who wants privacy while changing can have it? Pretty much every department store I've shopped at has a single, unisex fitting area, rather than a "men's only" fitting room and a "women's only" fitting room. (This is also why I think unisex bathrooms are totally fine as well: because people can do their private, vulnerable business safely behind a locked door, and if an attack was going to happen, the sign in front of the bathroom / locker room isn't going to stop an actual predator anyway.) Why even have men and women’s locker rooms at all? Why not allow cisgendered men into womens locker rooms? As you said, just because someone has a penis doesn’t mean he is going to abuse someone with a vagina. Yes. That's exactly the point I was making, by having unisex areas with solo private changing rooms/showers for anyone who feels uncomfortable around others (regardless of sex, gender, sexual orientation, race, etc.). If you're scared of black people, or men, or gay people, or old people, or anyone else, you can use a safe, private space. You don't even need to explain why you want privacy or which demographic offends/worries you! (Not "you" personally; I mean its general use.) The main problem with this solution is space. If you have a lot of floor space, you can afford to build individual unisex toilets and changing rooms. If you operate on a small property, for example in the inner city, then you have to choose between inclusiveness and a long queue at the toilet. I think having enough space might be a valid practical concern in some areas. That being said, penises being scary is not a valid ethical concern imo. I don’t know what ethical concern means in this context but penises being scary probably is a valid concern for many women. People with penises commit the vast majority of murders, rapes, sexual assaults, voyeurism, etc. The cavalier attitude of “just because someone has a penis doesn’t mean they are going to assault you” comes off as tone-deaf to very real issues that women have to deal with. If only I had suggested safe, private, single-person stalls, and preemptively underlined it because I had a feeling you'd ignore it. Anyone can use them, from sexists to sexual assault victims. No explanation needed. You suggested single-person stalls, which may or may not be practical, while also being generally dismissive of whether women should be concerned with penises in their spaces. The stalls themselves have nothing to do with whether women should or shouldn’t be concerned with penises. Can you please elaborate on why you believe that having single-person changing room stalls "has nothing to do with" women's feelings / everyone's perceived or real vulnerabilities? The single-person stalls were suggested as a way to directly address those very issues, and so far there doesn't seem to be a significant counterpoint as to why they wouldn't work in practice (especially given the fact that they currently work just fine in any department stores or other areas that use them). Do you mean that single-person stalls don't address the underlying systemic issues against women and other demographics that need to be fixed? Because sure, I agree that it doesn't, but neither does keeping men and women separate.
I was addressing your dismissive attitude towards women who might not want penises in their spaces. Giving them private stalls does nothing for the dismissiveness. I don’t think I can clarify it any more than that so maybe we should just move on.
|
United States41934 Posts
On July 05 2023 09:49 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2023 08:00 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2023 07:41 ZeroByte13 wrote:
So if, say, I'll go to women's bathroom and they are not happy to see me there, I can safely tell them their opinions/feelings don't matter, only mine do? Because if they don't want to see me there they are bigots and they can't tell me where I should be allowed to? The women's bathroom is for women. You're presumably not one so you're not allowed in there. Same as if there was an employees only sign on the door. If you go into the mixed bathroom and the women in there aren't happy to see you there then you can safely tell them that their opinions don't matter. Not because only your opinions matter, not theirs, but because you're entitled to the use of that space. I don't know where you people come up with these strawmen. Of course men aren't allowed where they're not allowed. Strawmen? You were just arguing that it’s fine if all locker rooms were unisex and women should just get over it if they don’t want to see people with penises in their locker room. In fact you suggested that it would be fine to do if not for the inconvenience of having to demolish all the M/F locker rooms and rebuild unisex locker rooms. When someone says women should be the ones to decide this you say “the women’s bathroom is for women.”
What are you talking about? I'm seriously very confused by your lack of reading comprehension.
I said it's not a big deal if people are trans, it's no different to the panic over gays in the men's showers.
You said that in that case it would be fine if we had one giant locker room.
I said that yes, it would be fine if we had to share like that, but we already have two and people seem to like it so I'm not going to demolish them and turn it into one, even if one would work fine. We don't have to share because there are two so the issue of whether sharing would be fine is moot. You for some reason thought this was some kind of gotcha where I can't say that yes, in theory sharing would be fine, if I'm not actively involved in remodeling bathrooms.
What point do you think you're making because I honestly can't see it. Right now women have the women's bathroom and so it would be weird if men were in it. But in a hypothetical in which the bathroom was shared it would not be weird if men were in it because in that hypothetical it wouldn't be the women's bathroom.
|
United States41934 Posts
On July 05 2023 11:02 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2023 07:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 05 2023 02:21 BlackJack wrote:On July 04 2023 15:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2023 14:34 BlackJack wrote:On July 04 2023 11:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2023 11:10 gobbledydook wrote:On July 04 2023 10:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2023 09:58 BlackJack wrote:On July 04 2023 06:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
Can't anyone feel uncomfortable undressing in front of anyone, though? It's not like having a penis means you're going to harass or abuse someone with a vagina, and if you feel uncomfortable because you see a penis or a vagina then you could also just stop looking at it. Cis-women could feel uncomfortable undressing in front of trans-women... or other cis-women... or men... or non-binary people. Straight men could feel uncomfortable undressing in front of gay men or other straight men. Why not just allow locker rooms to have changing stalls with locked doors, similar to fitting rooms at clothing stores, so that anyone who wants privacy while changing can have it? Pretty much every department store I've shopped at has a single, unisex fitting area, rather than a "men's only" fitting room and a "women's only" fitting room. (This is also why I think unisex bathrooms are totally fine as well: because people can do their private, vulnerable business safely behind a locked door, and if an attack was going to happen, the sign in front of the bathroom / locker room isn't going to stop an actual predator anyway.) Why even have men and women’s locker rooms at all? Why not allow cisgendered men into womens locker rooms? As you said, just because someone has a penis doesn’t mean he is going to abuse someone with a vagina. Yes. That's exactly the point I was making, by having unisex areas with solo private changing rooms/showers for anyone who feels uncomfortable around others (regardless of sex, gender, sexual orientation, race, etc.). If you're scared of black people, or men, or gay people, or old people, or anyone else, you can use a safe, private space. You don't even need to explain why you want privacy or which demographic offends/worries you! (Not "you" personally; I mean its general use.) The main problem with this solution is space. If you have a lot of floor space, you can afford to build individual unisex toilets and changing rooms. If you operate on a small property, for example in the inner city, then you have to choose between inclusiveness and a long queue at the toilet. I think having enough space might be a valid practical concern in some areas. That being said, penises being scary is not a valid ethical concern imo. I don’t know what ethical concern means in this context but penises being scary probably is a valid concern for many women. People with penises commit the vast majority of murders, rapes, sexual assaults, voyeurism, etc. The cavalier attitude of “just because someone has a penis doesn’t mean they are going to assault you” comes off as tone-deaf to very real issues that women have to deal with. If only I had suggested safe, private, single-person stalls, and preemptively underlined it because I had a feeling you'd ignore it. Anyone can use them, from sexists to sexual assault victims. No explanation needed. You suggested single-person stalls, which may or may not be practical, while also being generally dismissive of whether women should be concerned with penises in their spaces. The stalls themselves have nothing to do with whether women should or shouldn’t be concerned with penises. Can you please elaborate on why you believe that having single-person changing room stalls "has nothing to do with" women's feelings / everyone's perceived or real vulnerabilities? The single-person stalls were suggested as a way to directly address those very issues, and so far there doesn't seem to be a significant counterpoint as to why they wouldn't work in practice (especially given the fact that they currently work just fine in any department stores or other areas that use them). Do you mean that single-person stalls don't address the underlying systemic issues against women and other demographics that need to be fixed? Because sure, I agree that it doesn't, but neither does keeping men and women separate. I was addressing your dismissive attitude towards women who might not want penises in their spaces. Giving them private stalls does nothing for the dismissiveness. I don’t think I can clarify it any more than that so maybe we should just move on.
The space women are entitled not to have penises in is their bodies. They're not entitled to legislate that no penises be allowed in communal spaces intended for other people, some of whom have penises. Obviously.
|
On July 05 2023 10:37 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2023 10:14 Fleetfeet wrote:
That's the strawman, yeah. You've invented straw women who are incensed about these 'private' changing stalls with glass doors and penis wallpaper.
Granted, real women likely do exist that would be uncomfortable with the idea. However, I'm not likely to listen to a dude on the internet arguing for them. Fundamentally it's a similar objection, to, say, someone arguing identity politics on behalf of PG. Re-read zerobytes posts again. He’s quite agnostic on whether women are incensed about this or whether they should be incensed about this. He’s simply saying women should be the ones to decide this and others are saying the opinions of women shouldn’t matter and if they have a problem with penises in their spaces they need to get over it.
My mistake. I assumed it was just a continuation of your strawman instead of someone else's.
|
On July 05 2023 11:02 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2023 07:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 05 2023 02:21 BlackJack wrote:On July 04 2023 15:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2023 14:34 BlackJack wrote:On July 04 2023 11:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2023 11:10 gobbledydook wrote:On July 04 2023 10:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2023 09:58 BlackJack wrote:On July 04 2023 06:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
Can't anyone feel uncomfortable undressing in front of anyone, though? It's not like having a penis means you're going to harass or abuse someone with a vagina, and if you feel uncomfortable because you see a penis or a vagina then you could also just stop looking at it. Cis-women could feel uncomfortable undressing in front of trans-women... or other cis-women... or men... or non-binary people. Straight men could feel uncomfortable undressing in front of gay men or other straight men. Why not just allow locker rooms to have changing stalls with locked doors, similar to fitting rooms at clothing stores, so that anyone who wants privacy while changing can have it? Pretty much every department store I've shopped at has a single, unisex fitting area, rather than a "men's only" fitting room and a "women's only" fitting room. (This is also why I think unisex bathrooms are totally fine as well: because people can do their private, vulnerable business safely behind a locked door, and if an attack was going to happen, the sign in front of the bathroom / locker room isn't going to stop an actual predator anyway.) Why even have men and women’s locker rooms at all? Why not allow cisgendered men into womens locker rooms? As you said, just because someone has a penis doesn’t mean he is going to abuse someone with a vagina. Yes. That's exactly the point I was making, by having unisex areas with solo private changing rooms/showers for anyone who feels uncomfortable around others (regardless of sex, gender, sexual orientation, race, etc.). If you're scared of black people, or men, or gay people, or old people, or anyone else, you can use a safe, private space. You don't even need to explain why you want privacy or which demographic offends/worries you! (Not "you" personally; I mean its general use.) The main problem with this solution is space. If you have a lot of floor space, you can afford to build individual unisex toilets and changing rooms. If you operate on a small property, for example in the inner city, then you have to choose between inclusiveness and a long queue at the toilet. I think having enough space might be a valid practical concern in some areas. That being said, penises being scary is not a valid ethical concern imo. I don’t know what ethical concern means in this context but penises being scary probably is a valid concern for many women. People with penises commit the vast majority of murders, rapes, sexual assaults, voyeurism, etc. The cavalier attitude of “just because someone has a penis doesn’t mean they are going to assault you” comes off as tone-deaf to very real issues that women have to deal with. If only I had suggested safe, private, single-person stalls, and preemptively underlined it because I had a feeling you'd ignore it. Anyone can use them, from sexists to sexual assault victims. No explanation needed. You suggested single-person stalls, which may or may not be practical, while also being generally dismissive of whether women should be concerned with penises in their spaces. The stalls themselves have nothing to do with whether women should or shouldn’t be concerned with penises. Can you please elaborate on why you believe that having single-person changing room stalls "has nothing to do with" women's feelings / everyone's perceived or real vulnerabilities? The single-person stalls were suggested as a way to directly address those very issues, and so far there doesn't seem to be a significant counterpoint as to why they wouldn't work in practice (especially given the fact that they currently work just fine in any department stores or other areas that use them). Do you mean that single-person stalls don't address the underlying systemic issues against women and other demographics that need to be fixed? Because sure, I agree that it doesn't, but neither does keeping men and women separate. I was addressing your dismissive attitude towards women who might not want penises in their spaces. Giving them private stalls does nothing for the dismissiveness. I don’t think I can clarify it any more than that so maybe we should just move on.
You made up this dismissive attitude. It is not real. No women here have presented the idea to DPB that they do not want penises in their spaces. If they had, I'm certain DPB would respond charitably and include them in the conversation while pointing out that their spaces would still be protected within the shared space of a unisex room. From there, a conversation could be had.
Yes, were this a real board producing a real decision, it would be important to have a few less dicks on the board. However, you're still a dick and while you're welcome to point out that there are too many dicks on the board, you can't appoint yourself a non-dick and say words for them.
I, for one, encourage people to be dismissive towards people presenting themselves as the authority for a group they are not part of.
|
On July 05 2023 11:14 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2023 11:02 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 07:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 05 2023 02:21 BlackJack wrote:On July 04 2023 15:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2023 14:34 BlackJack wrote:On July 04 2023 11:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2023 11:10 gobbledydook wrote:On July 04 2023 10:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2023 09:58 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
Why even have men and women’s locker rooms at all? Why not allow cisgendered men into womens locker rooms? As you said, just because someone has a penis doesn’t mean he is going to abuse someone with a vagina.
Yes. That's exactly the point I was making, by having unisex areas with solo private changing rooms/showers for anyone who feels uncomfortable around others (regardless of sex, gender, sexual orientation, race, etc.). If you're scared of black people, or men, or gay people, or old people, or anyone else, you can use a safe, private space. You don't even need to explain why you want privacy or which demographic offends/worries you! (Not "you" personally; I mean its general use.) The main problem with this solution is space. If you have a lot of floor space, you can afford to build individual unisex toilets and changing rooms. If you operate on a small property, for example in the inner city, then you have to choose between inclusiveness and a long queue at the toilet. I think having enough space might be a valid practical concern in some areas. That being said, penises being scary is not a valid ethical concern imo. I don’t know what ethical concern means in this context but penises being scary probably is a valid concern for many women. People with penises commit the vast majority of murders, rapes, sexual assaults, voyeurism, etc. The cavalier attitude of “just because someone has a penis doesn’t mean they are going to assault you” comes off as tone-deaf to very real issues that women have to deal with. If only I had suggested safe, private, single-person stalls, and preemptively underlined it because I had a feeling you'd ignore it. Anyone can use them, from sexists to sexual assault victims. No explanation needed. You suggested single-person stalls, which may or may not be practical, while also being generally dismissive of whether women should be concerned with penises in their spaces. The stalls themselves have nothing to do with whether women should or shouldn’t be concerned with penises. Can you please elaborate on why you believe that having single-person changing room stalls "has nothing to do with" women's feelings / everyone's perceived or real vulnerabilities? The single-person stalls were suggested as a way to directly address those very issues, and so far there doesn't seem to be a significant counterpoint as to why they wouldn't work in practice (especially given the fact that they currently work just fine in any department stores or other areas that use them). Do you mean that single-person stalls don't address the underlying systemic issues against women and other demographics that need to be fixed? Because sure, I agree that it doesn't, but neither does keeping men and women separate. I was addressing your dismissive attitude towards women who might not want penises in their spaces. Giving them private stalls does nothing for the dismissiveness. I don’t think I can clarify it any more than that so maybe we should just move on. You made up this dismissive attitude. It is not real. No women here have presented the idea to DPB that they do not want penises in their spaces. If they had, I'm certain DPB would respond charitably and include them in the conversation while pointing out that their spaces would still be protected within the shared space of a unisex room. From there, a conversation could be had. Yes, were this a real board producing a real decision, it would be important to have a few less dicks on the board. However, you're still a dick and while you're welcome to point out that there are too many dicks on the board, you can't appoint yourself a non-dick and say words for them. I, for one, encourage people to be dismissive towards people presenting themselves as the authority for a group they are not part of.
He said “women being scared of penises is not a valid ethical concern.” Im other words women being afraid of people with penises should have no bearing on whether they should be allowed in women’s spaces.
On July 05 2023 11:04 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2023 11:02 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 07:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 05 2023 02:21 BlackJack wrote:On July 04 2023 15:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2023 14:34 BlackJack wrote:On July 04 2023 11:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2023 11:10 gobbledydook wrote:On July 04 2023 10:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2023 09:58 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
Why even have men and women’s locker rooms at all? Why not allow cisgendered men into womens locker rooms? As you said, just because someone has a penis doesn’t mean he is going to abuse someone with a vagina.
Yes. That's exactly the point I was making, by having unisex areas with solo private changing rooms/showers for anyone who feels uncomfortable around others (regardless of sex, gender, sexual orientation, race, etc.). If you're scared of black people, or men, or gay people, or old people, or anyone else, you can use a safe, private space. You don't even need to explain why you want privacy or which demographic offends/worries you! (Not "you" personally; I mean its general use.) The main problem with this solution is space. If you have a lot of floor space, you can afford to build individual unisex toilets and changing rooms. If you operate on a small property, for example in the inner city, then you have to choose between inclusiveness and a long queue at the toilet. I think having enough space might be a valid practical concern in some areas. That being said, penises being scary is not a valid ethical concern imo. I don’t know what ethical concern means in this context but penises being scary probably is a valid concern for many women. People with penises commit the vast majority of murders, rapes, sexual assaults, voyeurism, etc. The cavalier attitude of “just because someone has a penis doesn’t mean they are going to assault you” comes off as tone-deaf to very real issues that women have to deal with. If only I had suggested safe, private, single-person stalls, and preemptively underlined it because I had a feeling you'd ignore it. Anyone can use them, from sexists to sexual assault victims. No explanation needed. You suggested single-person stalls, which may or may not be practical, while also being generally dismissive of whether women should be concerned with penises in their spaces. The stalls themselves have nothing to do with whether women should or shouldn’t be concerned with penises. Can you please elaborate on why you believe that having single-person changing room stalls "has nothing to do with" women's feelings / everyone's perceived or real vulnerabilities? The single-person stalls were suggested as a way to directly address those very issues, and so far there doesn't seem to be a significant counterpoint as to why they wouldn't work in practice (especially given the fact that they currently work just fine in any department stores or other areas that use them). Do you mean that single-person stalls don't address the underlying systemic issues against women and other demographics that need to be fixed? Because sure, I agree that it doesn't, but neither does keeping men and women separate. I was addressing your dismissive attitude towards women who might not want penises in their spaces. Giving them private stalls does nothing for the dismissiveness. I don’t think I can clarify it any more than that so maybe we should just move on. The space women are entitled not to have penises in is their bodies. They're not entitled to legislate that no penises be allowed in communal spaces intended for other people, some of whom have penises. Obviously.
Is this not a dismissive attitude to what women may think on the matter?
Edit: also there’s congressional testimony from one of Lia Thomases former teammates that some of the girls changed in the janitors closet because they felt uncomfortable. The idea that anyone is “inventing” women that are uncomfortable is off the mark.
|
On July 05 2023 11:03 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2023 09:49 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 08:00 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2023 07:41 ZeroByte13 wrote:
So if, say, I'll go to women's bathroom and they are not happy to see me there, I can safely tell them their opinions/feelings don't matter, only mine do? Because if they don't want to see me there they are bigots and they can't tell me where I should be allowed to? The women's bathroom is for women. You're presumably not one so you're not allowed in there. Same as if there was an employees only sign on the door. If you go into the mixed bathroom and the women in there aren't happy to see you there then you can safely tell them that their opinions don't matter. Not because only your opinions matter, not theirs, but because you're entitled to the use of that space. I don't know where you people come up with these strawmen. Of course men aren't allowed where they're not allowed. Strawmen? You were just arguing that it’s fine if all locker rooms were unisex and women should just get over it if they don’t want to see people with penises in their locker room. In fact you suggested that it would be fine to do if not for the inconvenience of having to demolish all the M/F locker rooms and rebuild unisex locker rooms. When someone says women should be the ones to decide this you say “the women’s bathroom is for women.” What are you talking about? I'm seriously very confused by your lack of reading comprehension. I said it's not a big deal if people are trans, it's no different to the panic over gays in the men's showers. You said that in that case it would be fine if we had one giant locker room. I said that yes, it would be fine if we had to share like that, but we already have two and people seem to like it so I'm not going to demolish them and turn it into one, even if one would work fine. We don't have to share because there are two so the issue of whether sharing would be fine is moot. You for some reason thought this was some kind of gotcha where I can't say that yes, in theory sharing would be fine, if I'm not actively involved in remodeling bathrooms. What point do you think you're making because I honestly can't see it. Right now women have the women's bathroom and so it would be weird if men were in it. But in a hypothetical in which the bathroom was shared it would not be weird if men were in it because in that hypothetical it wouldn't be the women's bathroom.
I misread the 2nd paragraph of your previous post
|
On July 05 2023 11:30 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2023 11:14 Fleetfeet wrote:On July 05 2023 11:02 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 07:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 05 2023 02:21 BlackJack wrote:On July 04 2023 15:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2023 14:34 BlackJack wrote:On July 04 2023 11:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2023 11:10 gobbledydook wrote:On July 04 2023 10:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
Yes. That's exactly the point I was making, by having unisex areas with solo private changing rooms/showers for anyone who feels uncomfortable around others (regardless of sex, gender, sexual orientation, race, etc.). If you're scared of black people, or men, or gay people, or old people, or anyone else, you can use a safe, private space. You don't even need to explain why you want privacy or which demographic offends/worries you! (Not "you" personally; I mean its general use.) The main problem with this solution is space. If you have a lot of floor space, you can afford to build individual unisex toilets and changing rooms. If you operate on a small property, for example in the inner city, then you have to choose between inclusiveness and a long queue at the toilet. I think having enough space might be a valid practical concern in some areas. That being said, penises being scary is not a valid ethical concern imo. I don’t know what ethical concern means in this context but penises being scary probably is a valid concern for many women. People with penises commit the vast majority of murders, rapes, sexual assaults, voyeurism, etc. The cavalier attitude of “just because someone has a penis doesn’t mean they are going to assault you” comes off as tone-deaf to very real issues that women have to deal with. If only I had suggested safe, private, single-person stalls, and preemptively underlined it because I had a feeling you'd ignore it. Anyone can use them, from sexists to sexual assault victims. No explanation needed. You suggested single-person stalls, which may or may not be practical, while also being generally dismissive of whether women should be concerned with penises in their spaces. The stalls themselves have nothing to do with whether women should or shouldn’t be concerned with penises. Can you please elaborate on why you believe that having single-person changing room stalls "has nothing to do with" women's feelings / everyone's perceived or real vulnerabilities? The single-person stalls were suggested as a way to directly address those very issues, and so far there doesn't seem to be a significant counterpoint as to why they wouldn't work in practice (especially given the fact that they currently work just fine in any department stores or other areas that use them). Do you mean that single-person stalls don't address the underlying systemic issues against women and other demographics that need to be fixed? Because sure, I agree that it doesn't, but neither does keeping men and women separate. I was addressing your dismissive attitude towards women who might not want penises in their spaces. Giving them private stalls does nothing for the dismissiveness. I don’t think I can clarify it any more than that so maybe we should just move on. You made up this dismissive attitude. It is not real. No women here have presented the idea to DPB that they do not want penises in their spaces. If they had, I'm certain DPB would respond charitably and include them in the conversation while pointing out that their spaces would still be protected within the shared space of a unisex room. From there, a conversation could be had. Yes, were this a real board producing a real decision, it would be important to have a few less dicks on the board. However, you're still a dick and while you're welcome to point out that there are too many dicks on the board, you can't appoint yourself a non-dick and say words for them. I, for one, encourage people to be dismissive towards people presenting themselves as the authority for a group they are not part of. He said “women being scared of penises is not a valid ethical concern.” Im other words women being afraid of people with penises should have no bearing on whether they should be allowed in women’s spaces. Show nested quote +On July 05 2023 11:04 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2023 11:02 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 07:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 05 2023 02:21 BlackJack wrote:On July 04 2023 15:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2023 14:34 BlackJack wrote:On July 04 2023 11:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2023 11:10 gobbledydook wrote:On July 04 2023 10:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
Yes. That's exactly the point I was making, by having unisex areas with solo private changing rooms/showers for anyone who feels uncomfortable around others (regardless of sex, gender, sexual orientation, race, etc.). If you're scared of black people, or men, or gay people, or old people, or anyone else, you can use a safe, private space. You don't even need to explain why you want privacy or which demographic offends/worries you! (Not "you" personally; I mean its general use.) The main problem with this solution is space. If you have a lot of floor space, you can afford to build individual unisex toilets and changing rooms. If you operate on a small property, for example in the inner city, then you have to choose between inclusiveness and a long queue at the toilet. I think having enough space might be a valid practical concern in some areas. That being said, penises being scary is not a valid ethical concern imo. I don’t know what ethical concern means in this context but penises being scary probably is a valid concern for many women. People with penises commit the vast majority of murders, rapes, sexual assaults, voyeurism, etc. The cavalier attitude of “just because someone has a penis doesn’t mean they are going to assault you” comes off as tone-deaf to very real issues that women have to deal with. If only I had suggested safe, private, single-person stalls, and preemptively underlined it because I had a feeling you'd ignore it. Anyone can use them, from sexists to sexual assault victims. No explanation needed. You suggested single-person stalls, which may or may not be practical, while also being generally dismissive of whether women should be concerned with penises in their spaces. The stalls themselves have nothing to do with whether women should or shouldn’t be concerned with penises. Can you please elaborate on why you believe that having single-person changing room stalls "has nothing to do with" women's feelings / everyone's perceived or real vulnerabilities? The single-person stalls were suggested as a way to directly address those very issues, and so far there doesn't seem to be a significant counterpoint as to why they wouldn't work in practice (especially given the fact that they currently work just fine in any department stores or other areas that use them). Do you mean that single-person stalls don't address the underlying systemic issues against women and other demographics that need to be fixed? Because sure, I agree that it doesn't, but neither does keeping men and women separate. I was addressing your dismissive attitude towards women who might not want penises in their spaces. Giving them private stalls does nothing for the dismissiveness. I don’t think I can clarify it any more than that so maybe we should just move on. The space women are entitled not to have penises in is their bodies. They're not entitled to legislate that no penises be allowed in communal spaces intended for other people, some of whom have penises. Obviously. Is this not a dismissive attitude to what women may think on the matter? Edit: also there’s congressional testimony from one of Lia Thomases former teammates that some of the girls changed in the janitors closet because they felt uncomfortable. The idea that anyone is “inventing” women that are uncomfortable is off the mark.
You're inventing it.
Kwark clearly states that they are not entitled to legislate. That means what those words mean, not "they are not entitled to participate in the legislation".
I am sure there are women who are uncomfortable and those concerns are valid. You mentioning that there are women that might be uncomfortable and people dismissing YOU should not be conflated with people dismissing these hypothetical women.
For clarity, if you'd like to present a non-imaginary argument, I'd encourage you to find and present a non-imaginary argument. An anecdote about a woman being uncomfortable is a step in the right direction, because then people can actually discuss that instead of your imaginary argument.
Further, I'd like to point out that the anecdote you presented may have been avoided if the space were unisex to begin with, and the solution they came up with was essentially a private, unisex stall. Perhaps DPB is on to something.
|
Has anyone considered making a person born with a penis, Use the washroom of people who were also born with a penis? That seems the easiest option here.
As far as I can tell from others in this thread and more, Having a penis doesn't prevent you from being a woman, So lets not divide on gender lines, and just look at the P and V line. At birth. Problem solved boys. Can't wait to enter my first P bathroom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
