The Witch Trials, anyone else?

[Kalbear]

Just now, Ran said:

This seems like a pretty obvious necessity, especially when we recognize that there are dozens of genders, some of whom do not identify as particularly congruent with men/women/male/female and would be more comfortable with a more private space.

It's also something that can be dealt with practically with a mix of regulation, incentives, etc. It's just a matter of time. Unisex bathrooms are increasingly common here in Sweden, with individual facilities with locking doors.

They're becoming reasonably common at my work, too! Which is cool, but the other thing about them is that we don't have rules saying that you must use X bathroom; most of the guidance is 'use whichever bathroom you are most comfortable with'. 

What is being proposed above is not that; it is that if you are not cis you MUST use gender-nonspecific bathrooms. And that is not the same thing.

[Ran]

If all bathrooms are eventually gender-neutral, what's the issue? Again, it's obvious that this is how things will have to go in the long run, simply to accommodate the full rainbow of gender expression. Why should someone who is genderqueer or xenogender or agender be forced to make the choice between gendered bathrooms that reinforce a binary they aren't a part of?

I don't know, I think most people will agree that gender-neutral bathrooms at work places, public facilities, etc. will become the norm.  Probably the same for changing rooms. Prisons may be substantially tougher, though. 

[Kalbear]

Just now, Ran said:

If all bathrooms are eventually gender-neutral, what's the issue? Again, it's obvious that this is how things will have to go in the long run, simply to accommodate the full rainbow of gender expression. Why should someone who is genderqueer be forced to make the choice between gendered bathrooms that reinforce a binary they aren't a part of?

I don't know, I think most people will agree that gender-neutral bathrooms at work places, public facilities, etc. will become the norm.  Probably the same for changing rooms. Prisons may be substantially tougher, though. 

Because Rowling doesn't want that. I suspect she would be horrified at that idea. I think its a good idea myself, but if we are talking incremental vs. radical change that's a pretty big change!

[DMC]

Do think perhaps some of the bathroom issue is rooted in the fact that's, like, the only way in which women have a competitive advantage.  Always enjoyed this West Wing exchange:

Quote

Sam Seaborn:  Where'd you get the bathrobe?

Carol Fitzpatrick:  The gym.

Sam Seaborn:  There are bathrobes at the gym?

'C.J.' Cregg:  In the women's locker room.

Sam Seaborn:  But not the men's.

'C.J.' Cregg:  Yeah.

Sam Seaborn:  Now, that's outrageous. There's a thousand men working here and 50 women.

'C.J.' Cregg:  Yeah, and it's the *bathrobes* that's outrageous.

 

[Ran]

11 minutes ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

Because Rowling doesn't want that.

I suspect she has used unisex spaces in her time.

I can definitely understand her concern about communal changing rooms or as-currently-constituted public bathrooms with open stalls (by which I mean someone can peak over/under into the stall), because of the lack of privacy, but that would be fixed by having proper rooms with actual framed doors.

@DMC

I suspect it has more to do with there being way too many creeps as it is sneaking into women's bathrooms to film, peep, and/or importune them now, and that's with the social taboo that must restrain them a bit. Again, proper individual toilet rooms where someone can't sneak a camera (or their head) in to look at you will do a lot to fix that. I guess the creeps who leave hidden cameras behind will find it easier, but... I don't know, hard to see a good way to deal with it.

Regardless, there's a lot of genders, some don't feel like men/women/female/male, and they shouldn't have to pretend they do to be able to relieve themselves. 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Ran said:

I suspect it has more to do with there being way too many creeps as it is sneaking into women's bathrooms to film, peep, and/or importune them now, and that's with the social taboo that must restrain them a bit.

Yeah, the problem here is it's predicated on the assumption trans women are going to increase the danger of such "creeps."  In other words, that they are more inclined towards such behavior.  This is the same assumption that was applied to gay people in the 80s with AIDs, and, well, for the entirety of documented history before that.  It's the assumption that's pretty gross -- and offensive.

Anyway, that's why I've just generally been giving links and joking about this issue.  It's absurd.  If someone is intent on violating and/or abusing you in a public bathroom, the picture on the door is not going to stop them.  They're obviously not concerned about social taboos at that point.

[Ran]

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yeah, the problem here is it's predicated on the assumption trans women are going to increase the danger of such "creeps." 

Transwomen would also be endangered by the removal of the social taboo that polices entry into those spaces.

If no one can see someone and say, "Err, are you sure you belong here?" because anyone who says they are a woman can enter that space, then the issue is cis men who are inclined to be creeps will find it easier to be creeps, and they will creep on cis and trans women alike who do belong there.

Unless, of course, you have gender neutral bathrooms with proper individual toilets that afford complete privacy, unlike what is common in public restrooms in the US, and I gather the UK.

It just makes sense to me. Re: West Wing, I've heard women say that their issue with unisex bathrooms is is that men's bathrooms are disgusting, but all accounts I've read suggest that women's public bathrooms are generally filthier (at least in the US, according to people tasked with cleaning them).

[Phylum of Alexandria]

1 minute ago, Ran said:

Transwomen would also be endangered by the removal of the social taboo that policies entry into those spaces.

If no one can see someone and say, "Err, are you sure you belong here?" because anyone who says they are a woman can enter that space, then the issue is cis men who are inclined to be creeps will find it easier to be creeps, and they will creep on cis and trans women alike who do belong there.

Unless, of course, you have gender neutral bathrooms with proper individual toilets that afford complete privacy, unlike what is common in public restrooms in the US, and I gather the UK.

I was recently told that several unisex bathrooms are coming to Tokyo's Shibuya district. Given how rampant "chikan" behavior is there, I sincerely hope these things will be private or at least well protected rather than a free-for-all.

[Ran]

3 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

I was recently told that several unisex bathrooms are coming to Tokyo's Shibuya district. Given how rampant "chikan" behavior is there, I sincerely hope these things will be private or at least well protected rather than a free-for-all.

I'd imagine they wouldn't be US style stalls, but more like the Swedish public restrooms. The only shared facility might be sinks and mirror, if that (a lot of these with their own individual room for each toilet also have a sink and mirror).

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Ran said:

If no one can see someone and say, "Err, are you sure you belong here?" because anyone who says they are a woman can enter that space, then the issue is cis men who are inclined to be creeps will find it easier to be creeps, and they will creep on cis and trans women alike who do belong there.

Not sure what you're arguing here.  If you're saying both cis and trans women should be allowed in a women's bathroom, and then a cis man comes in, then yes - that clearly would be creepy.  Over the years I've probably went into a women's bathroom at least a half a dozen times accidentally and feel sheepish for doing so when a woman is like "what are you doing here?"

But, again, don't know what your argument is considering you're saying cis and trans women alike belong there.  I agree!  Are unisex bathrooms a solution too?  Sure.  In practice I've noticed people don't use them too much, but that's just anecdotal.  I imagine people will adapt in time.  Creepy people in bathrooms can be of any gender or sexual orientation, I think, is the point that should be emphasized in this silly debate.

[Ran]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Not sure what you're arguing here.

I am mainly pointing out that you misunderstood what I was saying. If you have a space for women indicated to be for women (cis and trans) but then also say, "And anyone who comes in should be assumed to be a woman and not questioned", then the social taboo that helps police entry into that space will be lifted, and those cis men who want to abuse that lifting of the taboo  will find their goal of creeping easier. There's already a lot more of them than you'd imagine

Quote

In practice I've noticed people don't use them too much, but that's just anecdotal. 

When all bathrooms are unisex, they won't really have much choice.

Quote

Creepy people in bathrooms can be of any gender or sexual orientation, I think, is the point that should be emphasized in this silly debate.

You'll find a lot more examples of creepy men in women's bathrooms than creepy women in men's bathrooms. Here are several reports from March. Here is one posted four hours ago. It's a lot. 

I mean, we all recognize that there's at least a reason for why gendered spaces exist, right? It wasn't because the tyranny of women. It's only in the last while with the wonders of modernity that we can start discussing being able to afford making public restrooms gender-neutral and keep them relatively private for all users and all genders. 

 

[Phylum of Alexandria]

I posted this in the Woke thread, but it's relevant here, related to what I was talking about earlier about people who are sympathetic to the trans cause, but feel a little threatened by some of the rhetoric and tactics that have taken hold. These are not Rowling types, but they do tend to be older, over 40.

MICHELLE GOLDBERG: "And then there are kind of, I think, substantive differences, especially around language. I mean, I can tell you that most women I know over 40 seethe at the word “women” being taken out of reproductive rights activism. I mean, I can’t tell you how many conversations I have with people about this who are just so angry about it, because it feels to them like feminism has become another place where cisgender women are supposed to defer and kind of back off and be self-effacing, and worry about other people’s problems. It drives people really crazy.

And these aren’t people — I mean, I’m not going to say whether or not they’re transphobic. That’s not my determination to make. But I can say that these are people who definitely would oppose bathroom bills, right, would oppose laws that try to stop young people from transitioning, that would probably support their own kids transitioning under some circumstances, and that would take a sort of more watchful waiting attitude under other circumstances, you know, but definitely believe that it has a place.

Everybody I know kind of know knows people who have kids who are either transitioning or nonbinary, and maybe they’re confused by that. But they’re not hostile to it. But there is a sense, I think, among a lot of older women that if you can’t explain the way that abortion bans are rooted in misogyny, that they’re rooted in the kind of fundamental desire to control women’s reproduction, then it becomes very difficult to organize, right.

Like, ‘some people oppress other people on the basis of their reproduction’ is just not really an accurate way, I think, of describing centuries of patriarchy."

********

Just as Goldberg doesn't feel comfortable making the call as to whether the woman's seething was transphobic, it's not really my call to make as a guy as to whether this kind of stuff poses a substantial threat or barrier to women. But at the very least it demonstrates how conflicts can potentially arise among the needs and aims of cis-gender and transgender women. Even if it constitutes bigotry, it signals a growing need for communication, else we're gonna get a backlash that's much bigger than just the TERF-y types.

What is the exact solution? I don't know. But whatever it is, it will have to include good faith dialogues. And persuasion. Here's Goldberg again:

GOLDBERG: "And somehow, we can’t learn those lessons, because you see so many of these dynamics being replayed over and over again. And what’s so frustrating to me is that it’s so different than the way the right organizes. There’s a documentary I wrote about recently called “Battleground,” which is a pro-choice filmmaker following around — most of it is her following around three different women leaders of the anti-abortion movement. There’s other people in it as well, but that’s the bulk of it.

And I wrote about this, and people were like, I can’t believe that you’re amazed by this. It’s so basic. But there was this one scene where these members of Students for Life are in a training to learn how to try to persuade people in comments sections on Facebook, right. So Students for Life took out ads that were targeted at young pro-choice people with the idea of drawing them into comment section debates that would, if not change their minds, at least kind of sow some doubt.

And so just — there is no emphasis on the left on persuasion. There’s often a kind of contempt for any discourse about persuasion, because it’s either, I shouldn’t have to argue with you; I shouldn’t have to defend my fundamental rights. And trust me, I believe that it’s frustrating to have to defend your fundamental rights. Unfortunately, we do have to do that.

Or if somebody is going to be kind of turned off by my rhetorical style, then they were already a sexist or a racist — which again, I think, might be true, but the world is what it is. And you kind of have to approach people where they are. It’s about trying to get people to join a coalition or take political action, not kind of be your friend or show themselves worthy of entry into a club."

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/08/podcasts/transcript-ezra-klein-interviews-michelle-goldberg.html

[DMC]

12 minutes ago, Ran said:

You'll find a lot more examples of creepy men in women's bathrooms than creepy women in men's bathrooms.

Ok, yes, of course cis men are more inclined to be creepy than all other groups.  I know that's not what I said but, c'mon, figured it didn't need to be said.  You really don't need to repeatedly link cis men being creepy as if this changes the argument.

16 minutes ago, Ran said:

If you have a space for women indicated to be for women (cis and trans) but then also say, "And anyone who comes in should be assumed to be a woman and not questioned", then the social taboo that helps police entry into that space will be lifted, and those cis men who want to abuse that lifting of the taboo  will find their goal of creeping easier. There's already a lot more of them than you'd imagine

K.  Again, I have no idea why you think the men - cis or otherwise - that are inclined to do this give two shits about the social taboo.  They are already committing a crime.  They are already - if they're engaging in this activity - insanely creepy. 

I just don't see why allowing trans women to use women's bathrooms would change this dynamic.  You seem to be assuming either (a) creepy cis men will exploit this opportunity or (b) trans women are more inclined to abuse cis women.  The latter is what I have a problem with and is wrong.  As for the former, I don't agree.  Frankly that would be hard to demonstrate empirically either way, so I suppose we'll just have to go our separate ways if that's your assumption.

27 minutes ago, Ran said:

I mean, we all recognize that there's at least a reason for why gendered spaces exist, right? It wasn't because the tyranny of women. It's only in the last while with the wonders of modernity that we can start discussing being able to afford making public restrooms gender-neutral and keep them relatively private for all users and all genders. 

Sure.  But we're talking about public bathrooms here.  It's not exactly a sanctuary, regardless of gender.  I just don't get what all the mishegoss is about.  Like, the best public bathrooms have those baby-stations.  Are we going to start checking the baby's gender too?

[Ran]

21 minutes ago, DMC said:

Again, I have no idea why you think the men - cis or otherwise - that are inclined to do this give two shits about the social taboo.

The lower the risk of being called out, the lower the risk tolerance needed to take a chance to get your creep on 

It's pretty straightforward. 

21 minutes ago, DMC said:

But we're talking about public bathrooms here.  It's not exactly a sanctuary, regardless of gender.

Why then did they come to exist? I

They *are* sanctuaries for privacy, and a separation of sexes driven by concerns for safety and decorum.

When issues with ventilation and cleanliness required stalls for easy maintenance and cleaning, privacy was reduced, so the sexes got separate spaces to "be with their own". These are no longer such an issue in wealthy countries, where we can afford more private individual spaces, and the recognition of the needs of the many different genders all point to gender-neutral bathrooms with appropriate levels of privacy as the best fit for modern society.

Like, minimizing the fact that women are disproportionately creeped on by men in bathrooms is kind of why there are people who see a strain of misogyny in these critiques. Especially when they come from cis men.

 

21 minutes ago, DMC said:

(b) trans women are more inclined to abuse cis women. 

Please read everything I've written and point out anything of the sort that I've said. If you can't find it, then please acknowledge that.

I've been at great pains to be clear that transwomen would be as creeped on by cis men as cis women, and have never once suggested trans women would abuse other women.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

19 minutes ago, DMC said:

They are already - if they're engaging in this activity - insanely creepy. 

Yes, they would all be insanely creepy, but they could differ in their level of nerve. Obviously the nerviest of the bunch would not give a rat's ass what the norms are, but if expectations are relaxed, more guys might feel like they could get away with creepy shit, perhaps under the guise of plausible deniability. 

[Kalbear]

Historically the reason we have segregated bathrooms is because of sexism, apparently- it's a way to protect women's virtue.

https://theconversation.com/how-did-public-bathrooms-get-to-be-separated-by-sex-in-the-first-place-59575

This was the same architectural design space that also encouraged ladies reading rooms and ladies train cars.

Anyway, it's clear that regardless of that - or that she used unisex bathrooms in the past - that Rowling would be opposed to unisex bathrooms. If you fear men not being called out for going in where women are because they're supposedly trans identifying, you'll fear a lot more when men can just go in and that's the normal thing.

[DMC]

9 minutes ago, Ran said:

The lower the risk of being called out, the lower the risk tolerance needed to take a chance to get your creep on 

It's pretty straightforward. 

The risk is the same.  They are committing the same crimes that will be prosecuted the same way.  What you are suggesting is the opportunity to commit the crime would be increased if trans women are allowed in women's bathrooms, but I see no reason to believe that'd actually be the case.  This is an unverified fear IMO.  I understand the logic, but, again, you can't support this, just as I can't support refuting it.

16 minutes ago, Ran said:

These are no longer such an issue in wealthy countries, where we can afford more private individual spaces, and the recognition of the needs of the many different genders all point to gender-neutral bathrooms with appropriate levels of privacy as the best fit for modern society.

...K.

16 minutes ago, Ran said:

Like, minimizing the fact that women are disproportionately creeped on by men in bathrooms is kind of why there are people who see a strain of misogyny in these critiques. Especially when they come from cis men.

Yeah, I don't think I"m being misogynistic for simply pointing out public bathrooms in this country aren't exactly "sanctuaries," but thanks for that unwarranted insult!

19 minutes ago, Ran said:

Please read everything I've written and point out anything of the sort that I've said. If you can't find it, then please acknowledge that.

I didn't say that was your rationale.  I was establishing the two reasons you may have that rationale and emphasizing I strongly disagreed with that one.  Honestly did not mean to offend - was trying to dispense with that aspect - but it clearly set you off.  I sincerely apologize if you thought I was unfairly associating you with that position.  I did not mean to.

[Zorral]

Again, please read this in order to learn how you've been grifted to hate Trans:

https://www.rawstory.com/how-far-right-activists-secretly-devised-a-brutal-anti-trans-plan-report/

BTW -- hey Everybody! The reason for gender separate lavatories in public spaces in the first place is there were no lavatories/cloak rooms for women at all, because women were not there: in government, in offices, etc.

When women arrived in these spaces, men were NOT about to share lavatories with women.

There are continuing issues and problems with this in both, for example, parliament and Congress.

[DMC]

46 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

more guys might feel like they could get away with creepy shit, perhaps under the guise of plausible deniability. 

As said above, I just don't buy this.  At the risk of being called a misogynist again, I really don't understand this fear.  If you are a creepy enough dude that you are doing this type of shit in a women's bathroom, you have already violated all social norms or taboos - let alone laws.  How is that not clear?

[karaddin]

3 hours ago, DMC said:

Are we actually re-litigating the dumbass bathroom debates?  Seriously?  

It is so fucking soul destroying to see the umpteenth iteration of an argument with more and more people teetering away from supporting you primarily because the argument has become increasingly toxic and that association gets attached to you, even though 99% of the people involved aren't even trans. 

And that toxic discourse was intentionally spiked by people aiming for exactly this outcome because they know it works.

To some of the earlier comments in the thread, it's impossible to point to comments that will be accepted as transphobic when the person asking for examples will only accept an explicit statement of "I hate trans people" - nothing else will actually fit their definition of it.

Personally I think the response to protests at Posie Parker's tour of the colonies is some of clearest examples of the TERFs engaging in bad faith behaviour. Cis women show up to protest, their actions get described as violence by trans people against a cis woman. Her own security's actions get creatively cropped to look like theyre the protesters and them manhandling the cis women protesters is proof of trans violence.

Also to an earlier comment, all trans people get defined as trans activists - our mere existence is activism to these fucks.