U.S. Department of Education Taking a Stand Regarding Locker Rooms?

[amigocabal]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/us/il ... share&_r=0

Federal education authorities, staking out their firmest position yet on an increasingly contentious issue, found Monday that an Illinois school district violated anti-discrimination laws when it did not allow a transgender student who identifies as a girl and participates on a girls’ sports team to change and shower in the girls’ locker room without restrictions.

Education officials said the decision was the first of its kind on the rights of transgender students, which are emerging as a new cultural battleground in public schools across the country.

Continue reading...

Here is the letter that the Department of Education published in support of their position.

- The OCR is not arguing that sex segregated locker rooms are a per se violation of Title IX (P. 9).
- Nor is it arguing that a school that chooses to segregate locker facilities on the basis have a general duty to allow persons to use the facilities on the basis of their gender identity. Instead, the DoE seems to be arguing is that because the student is allowed access to other facilities reserved for girls, such as sports teams and restrooms (pp. 10-11)

The news article plainly states that this letter is the "first of its kind". Apparently, this idea never occurred to the previous seven presidential administrations. (President Richard Nixon signed Title IX.) It does seem odd that the Obama administration would even take a side. I could understand if United States Supreme Court precedent squarely held that there may be some circumstances where Title IX requires a school to allow students of one physical sex to use facilities reserved for those of the opposite sex. But the letter does not cite any Supreme Court cases in favor of its position. Furthermore, schools have broad discretion to make accommodations for students with rare needs and to make exceptions to sex segregation of its programs and facilities. There is no appellate court precedent cited in the letter even suggesting that because the school could have done a better job in accommodating students with rare needs, its current accommodations violate Title IX.

Finally, this of course could be simplified by critics to simple slogans, causing the public to turn against this course of action and the administration. I see no advantage, and many disadvantages, in the administration taking a side in this dispute.

The student in question has a lawyer. A better solution would be to simply let the student's lawyers argue with the school's lawyers in court, and let the judiciary decide this legal question. The administration has nothing to gain by getting involved, or by pushing a position for which it can not even cite Supreme Court cases in support thereof.

[bilateralrope]

Finally, this of course could be simplified by critics to simple slogans, causing the public to turn against this course of action and the administration. I see no advantage, and many disadvantages, in the administration taking a side in this dispute.

Sometimes it's not about political advantages and disadvantages. Sometimes it's about doing the right thing.

As for the backlash, if it comes down to simple slogans I doubt anyone but Obama will get their name associated with this. How would the backlash hurt him ?

[amigocabal]

Finally, this of course could be simplified by critics to simple slogans, causing the public to turn against this course of action and the administration. I see no advantage, and many disadvantages, in the administration taking a side in this dispute.

Sometimes it's not about political advantages and disadvantages. Sometimes it's about doing the right thing.

As for the backlash, if it comes down to simple slogans I doubt anyone but Obama will get their name associated with this. How would the backlash hurt him ?

Well, the right thing should be done competently. The letter does not even cite Supreme Court precedent. A federal judge, if this dispute goes to court is certainly going to ask the DoE's lawyers which Supreme Court cases support their legal conclusion. If such precedent exists, it is not cited in the letter.

[Simon_Jester]

There exist legal principles other than precedent.

Otherwise, how do you think people would ever set precedents? They have to come from somewhere.

So the concern you present is a spurious one. A federal judge would be concerned with the legal reasoning in the letter and whether it is a valid or invalid interpretation of Title IX's anti-discrimination statutes. They would not be particularly concerned with "why don't you have any precedents?" when we know explicitly that the debate over transgender rights hasn't been taken seriously enough to have such a precedent until very recently.

So the Department of Education's letter may be upheld or otherwise, but it's not going to get shot down simply because of a 'lack of precedent' unless its legal reasoning is otherwise invalid.

[There may or may not be other issues here. I am not addressing all the issues that potentially exist. But the one you're raising in the post immediately above mine is silly]

[Alyrium Denryle]

The school already crossed the rubicon when it permitted a transgender student to participate in girls sports. Once it does that, it has de facto admitted that said student is a girl and Title IX applies.

Had they not done so, they would (and should) be facing an entirely different lawsuit.

[Joun_Lord]

The school already crossed the rubicon when it permitted a transgender student to participate in girls sports. Once it does that, it has de facto admitted that said student is a girl and Title IX applies.

Thats a good point. Kinda hard to say the student isn't gurl when she is already acting like one and being allowed to participate in female sports you can't so "nope its a boy now".

That argument shouldn't even have to come up. The fact people are making such a big deal about someone of the opposite gender or sex or whatever, I dunno different dangly bits, is the problem with America puritanical view towards sex and nudity. It ain't going to hurt some kid to see a dick or vag while changing even though they might no have one themselves. Its not going to turn them gay or scar them or turn the locker room into an orgy. Other cuntries have coed changing rooms without invariably devolving into massive orgies and if dirty eurocommies can control their urges then proud and strong Americans can to.

At most one can make the argument with teens someone with the genitals of the opposite sex might have a hard time considering teens are evil, devil creatures who like to make the life of anyone different a living hell and having someone transitioning have their own changing room is better for their own protection. But nyet, the prevailing argument that little Suzy who used to be little Timmy needs her own changing room is for the protection of the other kids and their virgin eyes.

This shit shouldn't be that big of a fucking deal.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Before I begin, for the love of god, proof read. Spell check exists. That is all.

I dunno different dangly bits, is the problem with America puritanical view towards sex and nudity. It ain't going to hurt some kid to see a dick or vag while changing even though they might no have one themselves.

No. It is not actually that. We have sex segregated locker rooms and bathrooms not to avoid seeing genitals, but because when someone is changing or using the bathroom, it is not only pretty intimate but also a vulnerable time for women. Men jeer women on the street and on their Twitch channels, it is a pretty small price to pay all things considered to make sure women have a space where they dont have to deal with that, particularly when partially nude.

It would be one thing if you could screen out the pervs, but you cant in a public space, and with a bunch of adolescent (read: asshole) young men in high school... there really is no other option.

But transwomen are women. If anything (in fact, there is no uncertainty here) they have it worse with respect to young men being assholes.

Other cuntries have coed changing rooms without invariably devolving into massive orgies and if dirty eurocommies can control their urges then proud and strong Americans can to.

The Eurocommies also have a tradition of public nudity that we don't. We internalize all of our social rules to a point we dont really notice we have them. Case in point, Americans on public transit tend to be gregarious and talkative and when we visit Europe, the Europeans find this weird and off-putting. The rules for behavior in public changing rooms in Europe are such that the issues we would have with it are markedly decreased.

We could get there too, but it is going to take some time and that is not suitable for figuring out a solution to transpeople using public facilities.

But nyet, the prevailing argument that little Suzy who used to be little Timmy needs her own changing room is for the protection of the other kids and their virgin eyes.

]

Nothing to do with virgin eyes. It is all about the bigotry. People who oppose transwomen using women's changing rooms are afraid that the "Man who dresses as a woman is a pervert who will be a sexual pervert in the vicinity of young women". Which is completely unjustified.

[Joun_Lord]

Before I begin, for the love of god, proof read. Spell check exists. That is all.

Usually when I misspell something its on purpose except when its not. Stuff like the "gurl" or "cuntry" was intentionally misspelled for my own amusement and I am easily amused.

No. It is not actually that. We have sex segregated locker rooms and bathrooms not to avoid seeing genitals, but because when someone is changing or using the bathroom, it is not only pretty intimate but also a vulnerable time for women. Men jeer women on the street and on their Twitch channels, it is a pretty small price to pay all things considered to make sure women have a space where they dont have to deal with that, particularly when partially nude.

It would be one thing if you could screen out the pervs, but you cant in a public space, and with a bunch of adolescent (read: asshole) young men in high school... there really is no other option.

But transwomen are women. If anything (in fact, there is no uncertainty here) they have it worse with respect to young men being assholes.

The main argument (aside from the pervert in a dress argument) used for people against transmissionsexuals using the locked room of their chosen gender or sex is that is negatively effects the other kids. That being around someone with a penor or vagoo will cause harm to them.

Transmen, genetic men, and genetic women all have the same problem of being fucked with though. Its not just men being cunts towards women but men being cocks towards other men and will certainly do the same towards a transman, women will be assholes towards other women and transwomen. Women can be just as dickish as dudes despite lacking dicks. Women seem less likely to go around jeering at people on the street like some modern day caveman but can be quite vindictive all the same. A transwomen could have it just as bad around women as she would around men.

The Eurocommies also have a tradition of public nudity that we don't. We internalize all of our social rules to a point we dont really notice we have them. Case in point, Americans on public transit tend to be gregarious and talkative and when we visit Europe, the Europeans find this weird and off-putting. The rules for behavior in public changing rooms in Europe are such that the issues we would have with it are markedly decreased.

We could get there too, but it is going to take some time and that is not suitable for figuring out a solution to transpeople using public facilities.

Their are differences between cultures to be sure, such as the Europeons pathological fear of firearms and considerable envy of your giant American dongs, but still there are alot of similarities. My point was mostly that other cultures similar to the Americunt one do the coed thing without it turning into any of the predictions touted by opponents of trans locker room junk much the same way someone might point towards other country's militarys when discussing the fears people had when America was putting ladies on subs, putting women in combat, and letting gays serve openly. Other countries have done so already without the problems people say would happen.

Nothing to do with virgin eyes. It is all about the bigotry. People who oppose transwomen using women's changing rooms are afraid that the "Man who dresses as a woman is a pervert who will be a sexual pervert in the vicinity of young women". Which is completely unjustified.

No, no, its all about protecting our innocent children from ravenous predators who will prey on our delicious children with their predatory eyes!

Seriously though yes, its about bigotry though thats not all its is. Bigotry, fear, and probably a healthy dose of stupidity and misinformation. The people opposed to this are fearful of transgendered people, fearful of their agenda, woefully misinformed about what it is to be transgender (hence the "man in a wig" shit that keeps being trotted out like a horse raised on a diet of reality tv), and just has some good ol' fashion hate thanks to the bible saying gaymosexuals and heshes are abominations. Some might not actually hate transgendered people but are just so pants on head retarded or so isolated mentally and physically they truly believe the lies and bullshit spoonfed to them about gay and trans people.

[Simon_Jester]

JounLord, as a matter of objective fact, transwomen are extremely likely to suffer physically when forced to use men's spaces. Because transwomen get hit with a triple whammy:

1) They are likely project some or all of the same "I'm physically frail/vulnerable" indicators to bullies and jocks that women do, so they look like targets.

2) They are an "acceptable" target to a much larger slice of the population because of homophobic/transphobic bigotry. Just as beating up black people was more acceptable among whites in the 1900-era Deep South than beating up white people was. So not only do they have a target painted on their back to anyone with a bullying or sadistic streak, but many of those same bullies and sadists think it's okay, or outright good, to indulge themselves by harassing or attacking transwomen.

3) This is over and above any of the 'gay panic' attitude from homophobic lunatics who are so insecure in their own masculinity that if they feel any attraction toward the aforesaid transwoman, they react with verbal assaults or literal physical violence.

Now, at least two of those factors are in play for women, but women don't engage in physical bullying, beatings, assaults, and rapes nearly as often as men do. It just doesn't happen. So, long story short, women might be as likely to "be assholes" toward transwomen as men are. But women are a lot less likely to rape or murder transwomen than men are.

And thus one of the big reasons that male-to-female transsexuals try to avoid being stuck in the men's bathrooms and changing rooms is because they (like a typical woman) have serious, well-founded fears about their safety in that environment. Fears that don't apply in the women's bathrooms and changing rooms.
________________________

Alyrium, I have noted/learned that there is a significant element of opposition to allowing male-to-female transsexuals into women's restrooms and changing rooms that comes from women who:

1) Believe on some fundamental level that men are men and women are women and this is biologically determined, and
2) Don't feel secure in a changing room or restroom if "men" are present, based on their own definition of man, and
3) Reject the right of other people to tell them who is or is not a woman.

This is fundamentally different from the attitude of someone whose grounds for opposition is "I think transwomen are sexual perverts trying to gain access to naked women."

And I think that the issue is going to remain contentious as long as this particular type of resistance remains in play.

[Grumman]

1) Believe on some fundamental level that men are men and women are women and this is biologically determined,

Which it is. A creature's sex is a physical trait and not one born out of belief. Even the people who believe that transsexuals really are of the sex they incorrectly believe themselves to be do not go so far as to claim that a day old baby is neither a boy nor a girl just because he or she is ignorant of such things, for example.

[Ralin]

Alyrium, I have noted/learned that there is a significant element of opposition to allowing male-to-female transsexuals into women's restrooms and changing rooms that comes from women who:

1) Believe on some fundamental level that men are men and women are women and this is biologically determined, and
2) Don't feel secure in a changing room or restroom if "men" are present, based on their own definition of man, and
3) Reject the right of other people to tell them who is or is not a woman.

This is fundamentally different from the attitude of someone whose grounds for opposition is "I think transwomen are sexual perverts trying to gain access to naked women."

And I think that the issue is going to remain contentious as long as this particular type of resistance remains in play.

I can't see how thats the case. Sounds to me like it's a difference between "I think transwomen are sex perverts who want to prey on naked women" and "I think transwomen are deluded men who want to intrude on spaces reserved for naked women."

These are not the same things, but they aren't fundamentally different in my book.

Even the people who believe that transsexuals really are of the sex they incorrectly believe themselves to be do not go so far as to claim that a day old baby is neither a boy nor a girl just because he or she is ignorant of such things, for example

.

You'd be wrong about that. Transgender people and advocates I've seen do to various degrees dispute the labeling of day old babies like that.

As I understand it biological sex isn't as clearcut as people make it out to be, but I'm not up on the reasons why and it would be nice if Alyrium would explain it.

[Joun_Lord]

JounLord, as a matter of objective fact, transwomen are extremely likely to suffer physically when forced to use men's spaces.......etc and such

I don't dispute any of that. Men are more likely to be physically violent while women more likely are going to be doing emotional abuse. However my point was that all those people have the same sort of problems that a transwoman will have (though I should have probably clarified that yes transwomen are more likely to have it worst) and its not automatically a safe space for a transwoman to be around women anymore then its automatically safe for a genetic dude to be around other dudes or a genetic women to be around other women (in the kitchen).

All have problems of being harassed and bullied, physically, mentally, and emotionally and I guess electronically now, because people in general tend to be assholes not just young men even if they are more likely to be physical assholes. Women can be physical assholes too, men can be emotionally abusive. Women are beat to ever loving shit by other women, a transman (that sounds like a superhero name) in their space isn't immune to this.

Just putting transwomen or transmen in the locker room with their chosen gender or sex or whatever doesn't fix the problem mostly because the problem is beyond just gender shit. Bullying in general is the problem. Its just in this case its compounded by attitudes towards gender and sexuality. But thats not unique. Similar things happen with bullying combined with race, with religion, and more.

Now I'll admit this is probably sounding like a "All Victims Matter" type deal but it needs to be said (well typed) that the problems transwomen face are not some isolated thing. Attempting to deal with that problem is inconceivable without dealing with the larger problems that make it so terrible.

[Alyrium Denryle]

1) Believe on some fundamental level that men are men and women are women and this is biologically determined,

Which it is. A creature's sex is a physical trait and not one born out of belief. Even the people who believe that transsexuals really are of the sex they incorrectly believe themselves to be do not go so far as to claim that a day old baby is neither a boy nor a girl just because he or she is ignorant of such things, for example.

Hi. My PhD is in biology. Ask Me How.

Oh? You're not asking? Well fuck you. I am going to Docsplain some things to your ignorant ass.

Sex is determined strictly biologically, but A) It is not a binary and B) that has very little to do with whether someone is a man, a woman, or something in between.

To give you the short primer, in the general case, people with XX chromosomes are biologically female, and people with XY are biologically male. There are however numerous chromosomal abnormalities such as Klinefelters Syndrome (XXY) that interfere with development. See that word, "development", I want you to remember it. It will come up later, and more importantly, it will be on exam.

To dumb it down for you, because you need it, development is the process by which morphological features manifest themselves in an organism prior to birth. The process by which morphogenesis occurs, in other words. Not only are there genetic issues that can mess with it (such as Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, wherein someone who is XY has a non-functional androgen receptor and thus develops as female because NONE of their cells get the message that they should be male), but the process is pretty complicated and lots of things can go wrong.

There can be serious problems with the development of genitals for example. So not only are there genetic intersex conditions like Klinefelters, but there are developmental ones as well. The penis will not fully form, or they will have a clitoris that looks and acts suspiciously like a penis because it is all the same tissue despite also having a fully or partially formed vagina.

These are called intersex conditions. There is even one that is common in the Dominican Republic wherein little girls are little girls until they hit puberty, then they grow a penis, their testes drop, and they become fully functional males.

People who are gay, bi, or heaven forbid transgender, have what is basically an intersex condition in their brains. Yes. Their brains. You know, the ball of neurons in the skulls of various animals that governs their thoughts, emotions, and behaviors? The thing that, in you, is severely stunted? Yes. That.

There are some parts of the brain that are sexually dimorphic. Nothing that really affects cognitive performance, mind you. Human males and females are, when treated equally, just as good as eachother at math, navigation, and communication. There are however significant differences in regions of the brain that govern mate selection, the sense of smell (oddly enough);and what is important for transgender people, the sense of self.

For someone who is gay, the parts of the brain governing mate selection are sex reversed, for bi people an intermediate state is occupied.

For someone who is trans, the part of their brain that tells the rest of the brain "this person is male" or "this person is female" is either reversed or occupies an intermediate state (the intermediates are what we refer to as gender queer, or non-binary). This results in them processing information related to gendered socialization (What it means to be male or female in the society in which they live) as if they were of a sex different from that which their chromosomes would indicate. They look in the mirror, and their brain is pretty well convinced that the body they see does not belong to them because they SHOULD have a vagina rather than a penis. Their name is not THEIR name, because Steve is a boys name and they most certainly are NOT a boy and would prefer to be called Samantha thankyouverymuch. All the cultural stuff we pass on to our kids, they absorb as if they were the other sex. Now, because the cause is in the brain anatomy and not a cognitive error or a chemical issue, no therapy or medication can fix it. That area of the brain is non-plastic. That is who they are, because who are we if not our brains? Well, except for you. I dont actually know what you are. A Cartesian Zombie perhaps?

Now if you think someone's dangly bits are more important than the actual mind occupying the body the dangly bits are attached to, you are just a contemptible person who really should just be given a sharp kick in the ass on your way out the fucking door of this forum. You are a bigot, and we dont let bigots stay here, last I checked.

[amigocabal]

Now if you think someone's dangly bits are more important than the actual mind occupying the body the dangly bits are attached to, you are just a contemptible person who really should just be given a sharp kick in the ass on your way out the fucking door of this forum. You are a bigot, and we dont let bigots stay here, last I checked.

The thing is, the dangly bits are not simply some sort of superficial feature, like spinning tire rims in relation to cars. The union of dangly bits have led to symptoms such as vomiting, making certain sticks blue, swollen babies, and pushing a baby out the birth canal. This is why it is difficult to convince most (let alone almost all) people that sex is merely a superficial trait with zero correlation to the dangly bits.

Of course, if such a view were to be generally accepted, that sex is merely a state of mind, what would be the purpose of segregating locker rooms on the basis of sex? We do not segregate locker rooms on the basis of other superficial characteristics such as which end of the hard-boiled egg one cracks during breakfast, or which side one takes in the Star Wars v. Star Trek debate.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Of course, if such a view were to be generally accepted, that sex is merely a state of mind, what would be the purpose of segregating locker rooms on the basis of sex?

Because in most cases, the dangly bits are a good indicator that can be readily assessed. Here is a hint: Transwomen are not men who just feel a bit girly inside. By the time they are using a women's restroom, they are living like women. They dress as women, they are usually undergoing hormone replacement therapy if they can afford it at that stage, they might have an elocution tutor, and they may have already changed their legal name to something that fits them better. Like Samantha.

So either they have completed the process and are unlikely to be recognized as once being named Steve, or they are midway through a transition process and there are other reliable indicators.

[Elheru Aran]

Reproduction is a specious argument anyway. Might as well say the locker rooms should discriminate against handicapped people or senior citizens. The fact of the matter is that sex is as much a matter of personal identity as it is external physical characteristics. Which is precisely why gender transition is a very lengthy process-- it's extremely important to not take steps that can't be easily reversed and the character of the person undergoing transition needs to be fully confirmed.

[Simon_Jester]

Which it is. A creature's sex is a physical trait and not one born out of belief. Even the people who believe that transsexuals really are of the sex they incorrectly believe themselves to be do not go so far as to claim that a day old baby is neither a boy nor a girl just because he or she is ignorant of such things, for example.

Just out of curiosity, what do "man" and "woman" mean to you, anyway? How do you assign the words to individuals?

Are they determined by chromosomes (XX, XY)?

Are they determined by physical structure (appearance, structure of the genitals)?

Are they determined by some other thing?

If you don't have a position on this, then it's impossible to claim that anyone is right or wrong to believe anything about whether they (or anyone else) is a man or a woman.

If you do have a position on this... well, is it a logically consistent position? I for one would like to know.

I can't see how thats the case. Sounds to me like it's a difference between "I think transwomen are sex perverts who want to prey on naked women" and "I think transwomen are deluded men who want to intrude on spaces reserved for naked women."

These are not the same things, but they aren't fundamentally different in my book.

The big difference is that you can convince someone that transwomen aren't demons or dangerous perverts, and that is enough to explode the first claim. It doesn't explode the second claim.

Also, the second claim is more likely to be held by a larger group of people who have a personal stake in the matter. Because they find the idea that a women's changing area or restroom is accessible to "men" alarming because they use those spaces and the very presence of a "man" in the space alarms them... and they don't accept the idea of a person who was born with a Y chromosome being anything other than a man.

I don't dispute any of that. Men are more likely to be physically violent while women more likely are going to be doing emotional abuse. However my point was that all those people have the same sort of problems that a transwoman will have... and its not automatically a safe space for a transwoman to be around women...

All have problems of being harassed and bullied, physically, mentally, and emotionally and I guess electronically now...

The big problem is that in trying to find some solution... well, I'm reminded of the phrase Margaret Atwood came up with: "Men are afraid women will laugh at them, women are afraid men will kill them."

Ultimately, cyberbullying and emotional abuse and so on and all these things are just plain less serious than being physically beaten up or raped or murdered. Not because they don't matter, but because you are not forced to physically bleed or be maimed against your will. Dealing with social and psychological harassment is a long-term cultural issue. Dealing with physical violence is much more... immediate, a problem that demands some kind of short term solution.

Now I'll admit this is probably sounding like a "All Victims Matter" type deal but it needs to be said (well typed) that the problems transwomen face are not some isolated thing. Attempting to deal with that problem is inconceivable without dealing with the larger problems that make it so terrible.

Thing is, do you actually do anything to ensure the physical safety of people who are being physically assaulted on a regular basis? If one refuses to do anything that actually resolves that specific, pressing issue, because "we can't fix this without solving larger social issues about a larger topic..."

One is being an asshole.

Hi. My PhD is in biology. Ask Me How.

Oh hey, you got your doctorate! Damn, we've been out of touch.

[Joun_Lord]

The big problem is that in trying to find some solution... well, I'm reminded of the phrase Margaret Atwood came up with: "Men are afraid women will laugh at them, women are afraid men will kill them."

Ultimately, cyberbullying and emotional abuse and so on and all these things are just plain less serious than being physically beaten up or raped or murdered. Not because they don't matter, but because you are not forced to physically bleed or be maimed against your will. Dealing with social and psychological harassment is a long-term cultural issue. Dealing with physical violence is much more... immediate, a problem that demands some kind of short term solution.

That phrase is based on gender stereotypes and frankly damaging. There is some grain of truth in it (as there is in alot of stereotypes, I'm walking proof the stereotype of the camo clad WVian who hates the South has some basis in reality) but they are not universal. Men might be more likely to get physical but women get all Olivia Newton John too. Just acting like women can't physically abuse creates more victims by leading to such shit as men and other women being ignored or actively mocked when they are physically or sexually assaulted by women. Shit like sexual abuse of boys given a pass and a high five because clearly a boy can't raped.

And don't get me wrong, physical violence is most definitely a more immediate concern but the other types of abuse can be just as punishing and even deadly. Physical bullying is more likely to be dealt with compared to other forms of bullying whereas emotional and electronic bullying is often ignored or actively denied to be bullying especially with men who are the victims of such abuse in some "reverse sexism" bullshit based of stereotypes.

A short term solution to physical bullying would be wonderful but unfortunately its a good intention that might lead to dire consequences. Such short term solutions are usually based on faulty or incomplete information and may tend to be used as the basis for longer term solutions by people who think its "good enough". Just shoving transwomen in women's locker rooms is a short term solution to bullying that can create more bullying (bullying that is more likely to be ignored) while doing nothing to address the larger problems of transphobia, sexism, and bullying that make living as a transwoman extremely brutal at times.

Now that isn't me saying that letting transwomen into women's locker rooms shouldn't be done if there is a good chance it might cut down on some physical abuse but it should be done with the knowledge it hasn't solved the problem, created new problems, is only a temporary fix until big brained people with big words can figure out a proper solution, and physical abuse along with other forms of bullying are still going to be a very big problem.

Thing is, do you actually do anything to ensure the physical safety of people who are being physically assaulted on a regular basis? If one refuses to do anything that actually resolves that specific, pressing issue, because "we can't fix this without solving larger social issues about a larger topic..."

One is being an asshole.

I'm not so much of a cunt I wouldn't step in to help someone being physically assaulted but I also wouldn't break my arm patting myself on the back on how I solved a problem.

Of course I'm not one who encounters such things very often being the recipient of such abuses for most of my life and being quite a bit of a shut-in nowadays thanks to that combined with other conditions.

[Alyrium Denryle]

That phrase is based on gender stereotypes and frankly damaging

It might be, but it is also empirically true. Women have FAR more to fear from men than the reverse. Just look at the FBI's uniform crime reports.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/c ... p_2014.xls

[Joun_Lord]

Women have FAR more to fear from men than the reverse. Just look at the FBI's uniform crime reports.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/c ... p_2014.xls

That shows that while women have more to fear men certainly aren't safe either. Which has been my point.

Beyond that the numbers for assaults could be far higher then reported considering the stigma men have about reporting abuse and the problems of getting cops to believe them. Again because of stereotypes that women cannot abuse men.

Its the same sort of stereotype that had people believing men couldn't be raped (and many still do) when in fact men are raped at nearly the same rate as women with it often having a female perpetrator. Stereotypes are the reason that men cannot be legally raped according to the FBI unless they are penetrated and all those numbers are usually ignored.

I'm sorry to harp on this point but stereotypes are very fucking bad even if they have some truth to them because even then they are never the complete truth and get us to the point half of America's rape epidemic is ignored.

Playing to the stereotype that women are not violent in regards to this locker room talk will get more victims ignored.

Stereotyping is bad bar none and should not be used when creating policies.

[Ralin]

The big difference is that you can convince someone that transwomen aren't demons or dangerous perverts, and that is enough to explode the first claim. It doesn't explode the second claim.

Also, the second claim is more likely to be held by a larger group of people who have a personal stake in the matter. Because they find the idea that a women's changing area or restroom is accessible to "men" alarming because they use those spaces and the very presence of a "man" in the space alarms them... and they don't accept the idea of a person who was born with a Y chromosome being anything other than a man.

Context man. If someone is so deluded that they believe they're a woman when they're not then OBVIOUSLY they're crazy. And crazy people are dangerous. There's no telling what they'll do. Maybe they'll turn out to be sexual predators looking to prey on women in the locker rooms they barge into. Maybe they'll freak out and start stabbing people because that's what the voices in their head tell them to do.

^That's describing the sentiment at work, not something I'm claiming is true. Obviously. But the point is that either way the idea is that transwomen are weird and possibly mentally ill creeps who want to intrude on undressed women. The two views blend into each other and I don't buy that they're fundamentally different.

[Purple]

I think you all are massively over thinking this. There is absolutely no reason to assume hatred of alternate sexualities on part of anyone involved. If you ask me this is simply the logical outcome of the fact that most parents are very awkward when it comes to their children and sexuality. Thus they don't want their little girls coming home one day after school and asking uncomfortable questions about human genitals that they than have to face and explain. Imagine if you had a 14 or 16 or what ever year old kid and found your self in the situation of having to explain what that strange dangly thing is that one of the girls has in place of her girl parts.

[Channel72]

14 or 16? Are you actually some kind of weird entity in a floating orbital cube?

[Imperial528]

14 or 16? Are you actually some kind of weird entity in a floating orbital cube?

Be careful, it might get to his vertices.

[Purple]

14 or 16? Are you actually some kind of weird entity in a floating orbital cube?

I do not get it.