This is a debate?

When I wrote the article “About This Whole Transgender Rights Discussion” I thought it might stir people up a bit, topics that cross into SJW territory often do. But I am mystified by some of the comments. So, I’d like to respond to some of them and ask for further commentary. Let’s start with a few comments by Hal:

Hal said it was “blatant misandry”, the definition of which is “dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against men”. Afraid I don’t see how you got that idea, seriously. FWIW, I am a straight white male, somewhere between Conservative and Libertarian and far more likely to be accused of misogyny than misandry (I’m not a misogynist, but since I don’t agree with a lot of the SJW and PC agenda I probably will be accused of it at some point). So Hal, please explain how you got the idea I hate men from the first article.

He asked me to re-write the Monty Python joke from the perspective of Female-to-Male transgender. I don’t think the joke works that way. One of the funniest bits is Reg: “where is the fetus going to gestate, are you going to keep it in a box?” – the way John Cleese says it is freaking hilarious. I don’t see how to make the joke work the other way around “how are you going to inseminate a woman, in vitro fertilization hasn’t been invented yet”. And by the way, it was Monty Python who did the scene, not me. If they thought it’d be funnier Loretta wanting to be Stan they’d have done it that way.

He also asks if this line is belittling: “If I want to hang out in the ladies locker room to watch them shower and dress, all I have to do is say I identify as a woman” and I’d say no, frankly, it isn’t. The whole point of that section of my article is that if you follow the PC playbook I can say I’m a woman and go anywhere women do. If there’s a flaw in my logic please point it out. You may argue that to make life better for transgendered people we have to accept that, but to pretend it isn’t an issue is dishonest. But, to try to meet him halfway, I will say unequivocally that under the PC doctrine “If I want to hang out in the men’s locker room to watch them shower and dress, all I have to do is say I identify as a man”.

I did note that this works in both directions, but I’m pretty sure it’s a bigger issue for women than men. A F-M transgender isn’t going to dominate male sports. I lived in Tampa 20+ years ago and there was a health club named “Curves” just for women. As I understand it (from my wife) a lot of women are self-conscious and are more comfortable if there aren’t men roaming around when they’re in workout gear. I’d also note that men don’t get raped by women quite as often as the other way around, so women are uneasy about guys in their dressing rooms and bathrooms. If I entered a men’s locker room and there was a woman hanging around I’m pretty sure I’d be uneasy but my wife would be far, far more so in the reverse situation.

Someone else commented that they’d not heard of any major cases of abuse. Here in the U.S. the practice of letting people use any bathroom/dressing room/locker room they see fit is in its infancy but I have a heard of a few cases. Women and young girls upset at men in their bathrooms, some cases of men hanging about in the dressing room and a few peeping Toms. I’ve also heard of a few cases of women hospitalized or seriously injured in competition. Given the bias of the press I don’t expect these cases to be given much notice, they don’t support the narrative. And this practice is in its infancy, there aren’t a lot of places where it’s allowed. I should also note that I haven’t looked for evidence, this is just what I’ve stumbled across.

All that said, I stand by the following, quite straightforward summary of my major concern:
The PC model requires that we have to accept whatever someone tells us regarding their gender identity. Second, once they have made this known we have to treat them as if that is not just their gender identity but their biological sex.

I’ll change my next line – this won’t lead to “at least a few cases of abuse” it will certainly lead to quite a lot of it. Not to sound like a misandrist (not sure I’ve ever used that term before, but now I’m on a roll it seems) but it would only take a small percentage of the male population to figure this out and boom, it’s a thing. BTW, the SJW types claim that we live in a rape culture and the Patriarchy wants to abuse women, but nobody would take advantage of open locker rooms?

There was a very complicated effort to posit an Option 3 that I’m struggling to follow. I did notice that the author of that bit refers to places in the sex determination where things can “go wrong” – isn’t that a hate crime? Seriously though I did say there are two “primary” ways to describe the situation, I knew that people who can come up with 57 genders would be able to complicate this. But I don’t think all the details change my point and in NiV’s case the individual recognizes that their biological sex and their preferred/desired gender do not match, so they would be Option 1.

I also note that one of the responses to my original article said in effect “who cares which toilets people use” – my article didn’t mention toilets, only locker rooms, nice try to divert the issue. But FWIW, a lot of women don’t want men in their bathrooms, and yes, that comes from them, I’m not guessing.

I found some of the comments bizarre, and I’m pretty sure Twatting on Tim is channeling Dennis the peasant “come and see the violence inherent in the system”.

So, I’m interested in hearing more comments. However please be fair in any response, such as, don’t switch the emphasis from locker rooms to toilets.

Support Continental Telegraph Donate

22 COMMENTS

  1. I dunno. Comedy ages like milk. Life of Brian still holds up, but The Meaning of Life was always a bag of shite.

    Re: trannies. I reckon they’d get a lot better reception if they were as plausible as the ladyboys of Bangkok. Being a hulking big fat white bloke-ette with a receding hairline, five o’clock shadow, clothes that look they were nicked off a dead prossie and a makeup job inspired by Pennywise the Dancing Clown is a tricky look to pull off.

  2. Abuse in the shower rooms is a red herring. Abuse needs redress, not a sham attempt at prevention by cracking down on entire groups of people. When people must undress in semi-public, they prefer to do so without people who might get aroused by their bodies. They would prefer no homosexuals nor heterosexuals of the other sex. This because they would prefer no drama.

    The problem with the “LGBT people” political crusade is that these people are defining themselves by their game of pretend and asserting that everyone else in society must accept, accommodate, and join them in their fantasy. That I am a woman is non-negotiable (because I have a bloc of chanting activists behind me) but everything else is negotiable. In other words, the essential goal of “LGBT people” is to OUTRANK other people.

    NiV posts here usually not to join the conversation but to make a statement about himself, as the usual point of declaring oneself an “LGBT person” is to busy others with a statement about yourself; and ToT is here solely to ruin the website or get banned trying, in either case returning to his home website in self-exultation.

  3. Abuse in the shower rooms is not a red herring & the issue runs much wider. Re: the shower rooms, if your 12 year-old daughter goes into a locker room to change & is followed by what appears to be a 30 year-old male I doubt you’d hang outside to find out if there was abuse that needed redress or be happy that she was about to learn about diversity and tolerance. If you own a small gym and your female clientele is leaving because you have what appears to be a man hanging around their locker room your business is doomed. Women and girls who are abused, molested or raped won’t find much solace in redress, if the perpetrator is ever punished.

    Re: the arousal theory, I don’t know about that one. When I’ve used a men’s locker room I never gave any thought to who might be gay, straight or bisexual, etc. I would be uncomfortable if there was a woman present, regardless of her presumed gender identity or sexual preference. Based on all the women I’ve talked to (a dozen perhaps) they do not want men in their locker rooms, regardless of their professed gender identity or sexuality.

    Many women choose a female gynecologist, but if the PC/SJW crowd have their way they would have to accept a male who IDs as a woman. Many women choose a female primary care physician, same story. Presumably dating services would have to accept and match people based on their stated gender identity. Men who prefer a male urologist, ditto. Give me bit and I can add quite a few more situations where individual choice must bend to the PC/SJW yoke (getting a bit poetic now).

    One last rant about the locker room issue – the abuse issue revolves around cisgender males who take advantage of this brave new world, not transgenders. Just thought I’d get that out there in case it wasn’t clear.

  4. “the abuse issue revolves around cisgender males who take advantage of this brave new world, not transgenders”

    Cisgender and transgender aren’t even ontologically real, though.

    It’s fair to use the term “transgender” to refer to people who either identify that way or are part of the transgender cult, but it has no material, biological significance. Neither does “cisgender”, which is just a tendentious rephrasing of what old-school psychologists and G.K. Chesterton would’ve called “sane”.

    So the bearded guy wearing lipstick and women’s knickers is just as transgendered as the one who’s had electrolysis, breast implants, and his willy cut in half and turned inside out. They both fall under the same category of people LARPing as members of the opposite sex, though the latter is obviously more committed to the role.

  5. “But, to try to meet him halfway, I will say unequivocally that under the PC doctrine “If I want to hang out in the men’s locker room to watch them shower and dress, all I have to do is say I identify as a man”. […] As I understand it (from my wife) a lot of women are self-conscious and are more comfortable if there aren’t men roaming around when they’re in workout gear.”

    As I recall from my school days, a lot of boys are very self-conscious about showering or changing where other boys can see them, too. There used to be a lot of huddling and shielding going on.

    So if I say I’m uncomfortable about men (possibly gay) looking at me, can I get all the men banned from the men’s changing rooms, as well? Or just the gay ones? Or just the ones I don’t like the looks of?

    This is a problem we already have solutions for. A lot of changing rooms have individual cubicles, for precisely this reason. Of course, I know as soon as I say this, certain people are going to complain about the extra cost. But the costs are generally borne by those who want it. So if I want a changing room with individual cubicles, I’ll have to go to gyms that provide that, and presumably charge extra for it. People who don’t care don’t have to.

    “I’d also note that men don’t get raped by women quite as often as the other way around, so women are uneasy about guys in their dressing rooms and bathrooms.”

    Men mainly get raped by other men (mainly in prison, but it can happen elsewhere). So again, this is an argument for banning men from the men’s changing rooms.

    And I don’t know about dressing rooms, but as far as bathrooms go in the UK women are actually *less* concerned about it than men. 72% of women are unconcerned about a TG in their toilets, versus 64% of men.

    “Someone else commented that they’d not heard of any major cases of abuse. Here in the U.S. the practice of letting people use any bathroom/dressing room/locker room they see fit is in its infancy but I have a heard of a few cases.”

    It’s not a case of “not heard of”. They specifically asked the police forces of a large number of districts, and they all said there was no problem. They also said they opposed the bathroom laws, because they were impossible to police. (What are you going to do? Ask to inspect everyone’s genitals before you let them into the ladies?!) The experiment has already been tried – in some places for more than 40 years.

    That there are always going to be “a few cases” is a given for *any* crime risk. Such as school shooters, to take a particularly topical example. Banning TGs from changing rooms is like banning guns from university grounds. It doesn’t actually help against the criminals, because criminals by definition don’t follow the rules anyway. And it inconveniences and endangers thousands of innocent people in the process. Of course, a lot of people suspect that’s the point of doing it.

    It’s what I call the “Group-A-Group-B trick”. There’s a group A that you want to persecute, but there’s too much public sympathy for to get away with that. So you find a group B that overlaps with them, that the public thinks it’s perfectly justifiable to persecute. Then you point to the overlap cases, and then say we’re going to bring in rules against group A to deal with the problem of group B. It doesn’t actually matter if your new rules do anything to stop group B, the point is you’ve got a publicly sanctioned stick to hit group A with.

    There are lots of examples. The feminists do A=men, B=rapists. The prohibitionists do A=drinkers, B=drunkards. The gun-snatchers do A=people who own guns, B=crazed mass-murderers on a gun spree. The government do A=people who want to communicate privately, B=terrorists and child pornographers plotting atrocities. Race-baiters do A=people who don’t like immigrants, B=Ku Klux Klan lynch mobs. And so on.

    It’s perfectly justifiable to make laws against group B. It’s not justifiable to make laws against group A, pretending you’re all about group B.

  6. NiV – “As I recall from my school days, a lot of boys are very self-conscious about showering or changing where other boys can see them, too. There used to be a lot of huddling and shielding going on.”

    Quite telling.

  7. “And this practice is in its infancy, there aren’t a lot of places where it’s allowed. I should also note that I haven’t looked for evidence, this is just what I’ve stumbled across.”

    It’s very honest of you to admit that! Allow me to help you stumble across some more. https://transequality.org/what-experts-say

    We all care about safety and privacy in restrooms. Which is why it’s important to remember that nondiscrimination laws protecting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people have been around for a long time. In fact, 18 states and over 200 cities across the country have passed and successfully implemented laws that protect lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people from discrimination in public accommodations–and there’s been no increase in public safety incidents in restrooms in any of these cities or states.

    However, those who oppose protecting gay and transgender people from discrimination falsely claim that these laws put the safety of women and children at risk — they say these laws can be abused by predators to go into women’s facilities. However, the claims have no basis in fact.

    About half of the U.S. population lives in a city or state that has a transgender-inclusive nondiscrimination law. Here are what police officials from places with these laws say about whether or not these laws threaten public safety:

    Spokespeople from the Des Moines, Albuquerque, Baltimore San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York city police departments said they knew of no problems in facilities relating to California and New York City’s non-discrimination laws – which have all been in place for over a decade.

    The Des Moines (Iowa) Police Department said “We have not seen that.” when asked if they there were any cases of sexual assault related to the state’s non-discrimination statute, passed in 2007.

    The Cambridge (Massachusetts) Police Superintendent said “there have been no incidents of men dressing up as women to commit crimes in female bathrooms and using the city ordinance as a defense.”

    Rehoboth, Delaware Police Chief Keith Banks said, “We’ve had no concerns on this and no complaints have been made, and we have observed none,”concerning Delaware’s non-discrimination law.

    The Minneapolis Police Department said that fears about sexual assault are “not even remotely” a problem, and the notion of men posing as transgender women to enter women’s restrooms to commit sex crimes “sounds a little silly.” Minneapolis was the first city to pass a transgender-inclusive nondiscrimination law over 40 years ago, in 1975.

    The Las Vegas Police Department was asked if they had seen any cases of sexual assault related to the state’s non-discrimination statutes. Their response? “The answer would be no.”

    The Albuquerque Police Department said, “We are unaware of any cases of assault” due to New Mexico’s non-discrimination law, which passed in 2003.

    A Portland, Oregon Police Department representative said, “I have never heard of any issues” of assault relating to the state’s non-discrimination statute, which passed in 2007.

    Detective Nicole Monroe, a public information officer with the Baltimore Police Department, said worries about transgender-inclusive policies are “the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.” Baltimore passed its law in 2002 and Maryland passed a state law in 2014.

    Even in Texas…!

    https://www.texastribune.org/2017/07/25/law-enforcement-comes-out-against-texas-bathroom-bill/

    Proponents of the bill have argued that the bathroom restrictions are needed to deter sexual predators from using trans-inclusive policies to enter bathrooms of the opposite sex. But law enforcement officials representing cities where officials have enacted policies to outline transgender residents’ right to use public bathrooms of their choice said on Tuesday that there’s simply no evidence to back up those claims. “I asked my department to go through the record. What we found is this: There were no known incidents of bathroom assaults performed by men posing as transgender women,” San Antonio Police Chief William McManus said Tuesday. “I am a believer that if you propose a bill to address a criminal justice concern, it is important to determine if there is an actual problem you are trying to solve.”

    But maybe they’re all lying? Does anyone have any counter-statistics, showing the massive rise in bathroom crime?

  8. Re: the police STATEMENTS (I haven’t figured out to make the font huge, Damn, I guess I have to surrender). But seriously, I notice you quote police from a lot of left wing cities – Portland, Baltimore, New York, Cambridge – unfortunately I’m compelled to point out that they aren’t going to upset the PC apple cart. If there have been issues they will be downplayed. If you think I’m being too cynical I will note that the February school shooting in Florida might have been averted except for the fact that the school and local police department had agreed not to report or charge a lot of criminal behavior for PC purposes.

    I further notice that your QUOTES (Damn, still can’t get them in giant font) refer to bathrooms. As I noted earlier, a clever way to try to finesse this is to switch from locker rooms to toilets. The PC/SJW crowd aren’t going to stop at toilets, they will insist (already do, actually) that we must treat people’s declared gender identity as their biological sex for all purposes. I will concede that your quotes appear more authoritative than my recollections, although I’d want to hear from someone who had investigated them. This would not be the first time that an advocacy group stretched the truth a bit (see 18 school shootings in the U.S. through February 14).
    There may be a lot of places in the U.S. that have had bathroom accommodation laws for a long time but the idea that this should be extended to dressing rooms, locker rooms and bathrooms everywhere is a very recent development in the U.S. I’ll also note that in large cities it’s very common for most bathrooms to be limited to one person at a time, which makes the issue moot.
    Re: the poll of UK women, once again you’re talking about bathrooms, not dressing rooms. I’d also note that how a poll question is worded can make all the difference in the world, so I can’t take even that at face value.
    Re: the shyness issue, that is an interesting point.
    I will admit you’ve given me some things to think about, but I am hesitant to swallow all your arguments DESPITE THE GIANT TYPE (I’m going to have to figure out how to do that) – I don’t trust advocacy groups, even statistical or factual claims without being able to verify them. I also note, again, that going from toilets to locker rooms is a very large leap and it doesn’t stop there. You want a female gynecologist, that’s fine as long as you accept anyone who says their gender identity is female today.

    • Have just played with the fancier editor for writing a new article and the method seems to be to type HTML tags right into your reply, like [I]italic[/I] except with angle brackets. Here is a test.

      Private booths at changing rooms, perhaps at extra cost, seems to be the most nearly free-market way of handling this little bit of societal breakdown, given that the man who wrote “No skin off my nose” seems to accept the proposition that “LGBT people” outrank the rest of us, and we must adapt, because they care so darned much. There is recently a new piece of techno-babble (cis-gender) for those of us not playing games of pretend. (Yet. “Openly gay” implies that the rest of us are temporarily confused.)

    • “I haven’t figured out to make the font huge, Damn, I guess I have to surrender”

      It was just blockquote. I’ve used it before here, without that effect. Someone’s messing with the style sheets.

      “But seriously, I notice you quote police from a lot of left wing cities”

      Maybe so. I don’t know the political balance of many US cities. Maybe they didn’t ask the right-wing ones? Maybe the right-wing cities didn’t reply because they wanted to play down the absence of trouble there, too? Maybe they’re less likely to have passed such ordinances in the first place? Maybe the men in the left cities are all soy boys and uninterested in looking at women? Who knows? All I can say is that someone went to the effort of checking, and this is the answer they got, and I’ve not seen anything more comprehensive to contradict it. Although I did put in the separate quote from Texas because it has the reputation of being more right-wing. (Is it?)

      But this is the purpose of debating it. I put up some statistics suggesting one thing, hoping that someone who believes differently to me will know where to find alternative statistics proving me wrong. I mean, your different belief must be founded on better evidence than I’ve got, right?

      I’d rather find the truth than win the argument.

      “Re: the poll of UK women, once again you’re talking about bathrooms, not dressing rooms. I’d also note that how a poll question is worded can make all the difference in the world, so I can’t take even that at face value.”

      Quite right! But thanks for being so open-minded about it. I’m genuinely impressed! You can check out the wording on p14-15 here:
      http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media/39147/bsa34_moral_issues_final.pdf

  9. I remember when my mum would take me into the ladies changing rooms at the pool when I was about 4 years old, best days of my life…..

    Imagine if a women came into the men’s changing room. I doubt most men would be uncomfortable it would be more “weyhey lads… helicopter time!”.

    Because men and women are different.

    I think Steve gets it right with the point about Thai Ladyboys. No one would care because they can actually pull it off (fnar fnar, yurk yurk) unlike Brucey et al in the West.

  10. Thanks for the link to the actual poll question, I don’t think it’s biased at all. But I think the answer to “how comfortable are you if any man can enter any woman’s locker room if he’s prepared to say he ID’s as a woman at this moment” might be different. And if you think I’m stretching the argument I don’t think so, we have fluid genders and this is the end game that the PC/SJW crowd will reach.

    And I apologize if all the jokes about giant type came off as snarky, I meant to be funny.

    I appreciate your comment re: finding the truth versus being right and I second it.

    Re: police departments I’m pretty sure that left-leaning cities are far more likely to have laws in this area.

    But, I fall back on a couple of points:
    The PC/SJW position is that we must accept anyone’s self-identification & treat them as if that is their biological sex. This will lead to a fair amount of discomfort (locker rooms, gynecologists, GPs, therapists, etc.) and some abuse.
    Unless you are prepared to argue that the PC/SJW crowd will stop at toilets, please don’t use that argument again.

    Just FYI, in the U.S. Target announced that it would allow people to use the bathroom or dressing room that they ID’d with. Over 700,000 people signed a petition in protest and vowed to boycott Target. Just to make the point that there are people who think this is a problem. I think the percentages who have a problem with it would be quite a lot higher if people thought through where this leads (or at least where I think it does) – Ms. Jones, did you realize that you gave up the right to choose a female gynecologist?
    I seem to remember an article on Worstall’s website about women who had been raped or abused who were very upset to find that the all-female staff they were going to be treated by included transgender men. Now that’s a tough one, eh, a pretty sympathetic group to batter for their lack of empathy.

    • I agree. I think the answers for other questions may be different, and I do definitely think the percentages would be different in America. We’ve had those same non-discrimination laws throughout the UK for the last 7 years with no political protest, and so far as I know, no trouble. I don’t know about the American law, but ours apply to all public accomodations which includes changing rooms and toilets.

      I mainly talk about toilets because that’s what I have data on. If you can find any to back up opinions on changing rooms, please do!

      On the discomfort front – my view is that it ought to work the same way as *anyone* showing discomfort at having to share a space or get a service from with *any* other sort of person. What if I feel uncomfortable with a black doctor, a white doctor, a male doctor, a female doctor, a Republican doctor, a blonde doctor, an immigrant doctor, a gay doctor, a Catholic doctor, a Protestant doctor, an Atheist doctor, a voodoo doctor, a “climate denier” doctor, an anti-guns doctor, … where do you stop? (I’d probably be nervous about an anti-vaccination doctor… 🙂 ) Does your “discomfort” with people of certain categories allow you to pick and choose who gets to provide or use a public service at the same time as you?

      Where there is a widespread shyness, so the market is willing to pay the extra cost, we already solve all that by using individual cubicles. On services, the answer is for people with popular attributes being allowed to charge more, and let the market decide. It seems to me like people are creating a problem to justify their particular illiberal solution, when there are already alternative solutions around that don’t pose liberty problems.

      And I enjoyed the jokes about the big type!

  11. “Cisgender and transgender aren’t even ontologically real, though.”

    My sole objection to this whole thing is the misuse, nay, outright slaughter of the English language there. “cis” is the oppostie of the wrong “trans”. Cis- means “this side of, same side of”, being the opposite of “the other side of”, not the opposite of “changed, transformed”. Transalpine Gaul is Gaul on the other side of the Alps, not Gaul that has been changed in some way.

    The problem is, though, the opposite prefix of “changed, transformed” is “unchanged, nontransformed”, which would give “untrans, nontrans” which carries an implication that the trans is a pending not-yet-fulfilled inevitable end state in the same way that “unreformed” gives the implication that it is an undesired state to be moved away from.

    The other opposite of would be based on “original” or – horror horror “normal”.

    • the opposite prefix…gives the implication that it is an undesired state to be moved away from.

      There is nothing about the entire modern “human sexuality” “conversation” that is not normative – especially when it moves to the legislature and threatens to up-end employment law. Again, “gays” are now “openly gay” because the rest of us simply have not yet come out of the closet.

    • “Cis- means “this side of, same side of”, being the opposite of “the other side of”, not the opposite of “changed, transformed”.”

      Trans in the modern sense isn’t short for “transformed”. Transgender means that birth sex and gender are on opposite sides of the male/female divide. Cisgender means they’re on the same side.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender#Etymology_and_terminology
      https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/cisgender

      I’ve heard that the original definition of transgender was used to mean someone who had crossed over to the other set of gender roles (i.e. no surgery), to be distinguished from transsexual meaning someone who had crossed over to the other sex (i.e. with surgery). But the usage (along with the term “transsexual”) has dropped out of fashion.