My advice to men who think they are women. If you think that, there are a few things that you need to understand. First of all is that you are still a man because you can't change your biological sex. It's okay to dress any way you wish and to adopt any superficial, stereotypical attributes of women that you desire. Live your life. No one should care, I certainly don't. However, because women are entitled to be treated fairly and to enjoy privacy from men there are certain things that are prohibited to you and me because we are men. You can't compete against women in most sports because it would be unfair. You can't go into women's private places like restrooms and locker rooms because that would make them feel unsafe. Finally, if you are a criminal you certainly can't be imprisoned with women.
Exactly, trans women are welcome in men's private spaces and I would stand up for their right to be treated with civility and respect in those spaces. Their are many kinds of men and I have no problem with diverse presentation.
There is real gender dysphoria and there is a fashion fetish. The problems is the inability or lack of interest to separate both and define them as separate.
Exactly this. This issue would never have reached this level of toxicity if some basic, common sense efforts were made to deal with the fetishists and the predators.
Sadly, after years of abuse and attacks, there are a lot of people who have lost all interest in differentiating. And I can’t blame them.
Trans activism has done immeasurable damage to the trans community and even the LGB community as a whole.
It’s not who passes for a woman… it’s not that some restrooms have men and women in. In those particular restrooms the women understand the deal. The problem is men in women’s restrooms as a norm. Because if that is legalised across the board, then it’s an exponential problem… because some men will take advantage of those rules, as some men have done in women’s prisons, to the point of rape and impregnating a woman.
If I’m walking behind a woman at night, I make a point of crossing the road because I know there is a thought in her head, a thought that I wouldn’t have, if the situation was reversed and she was walking behind me.
Namely, that she might be at risk of harm.
Some people answer that with ‘well, we can all be at risk of harm at some point’ to which I say, imagine hearing a noise on the stairs as you’re trying to sleep…. It’s dark…. You get up cautiously and go look but as your hand reaches the handle of the door,
the door bursts open and a figure pushes you to the ground.
You’re told to be quiet.
He has a knife. Someone else is rifling through the drawers.
They leave. It could have been worse.
Now, go to bed the next night.
Tell me you’re gonna sleep like a baby.
Tonight, it just might be worse.
And on. And on.
You’ve entered the world of what might happen. And you’re on your guard in a way you weren’t the night before it happened.
That is a woman’s world.
Always.
This shit is ok when it’s over there, way over there… not in our jurisdiction…. But we always see a little bit more when we live it a little.
In real gender dysphoria that has included medical transition, it is unlikely that women would be able to tell the difference. Unless we are going to do XX vs XY tests and give everyone an armband to identify their gender, it is just a physical appearance issue.
No, MEN can't tell the difference. Women can tell the difference every single time. Recognising the difference between male and female is an evolutionary survival trait women have relied on for all of time. Even if there's a double take, that double take happens for a reason: because on the deepest level, women know when they are in the presence of a male, regardless the modifications.
Nothing wrong with womansplaining when a woman is telling you what women actually can do that, apparently, you cannot do and do not understand that women can do. You have made it clear that you do not think women can clock males who larp as females, but evolution has made women very able to do that.
Womansplaining is the process of failing to think critically through a rind of strong emotions, hence womansplaining is irrational and should be rejected and avoided.
That is really not true! If by "medical transition" you mean a man who has had his male genitalia removed, there is no way that at a quick glance a woman (or other man, for that matter) could tell that he no longer has male genitalia (no bulge in his crotch).
None of us realize it when a clothed man has had his genitalia removed due to trauma or disease. If by "medical transition" you mean a man whose breasts have somewhat enlarged due to estrogen he has taken, or has had breast implants,that he is not simply a man with gynecomastia. Some women joke when looking at a man with gynecomastia that "he has bigger boobs than I do!" Because some men do have bigger breasts than women with small breasts.
There are many ways in which men (males!) are anatomically different than women (females!). Relative to their overall body size, men have bigger hands and bigger feet than women is one of the most conspicuous differences. They have Adam's apples which the men who try to pass as women often try to conceal by wearing chokers. Their voices are usually much deeper in pitch. These days hulking 6'4" built-like-a-brick-shithouse men think that they can pass as women if they just wear high heels, long hair wigs and makeup. The males with the best chance of passing are those with small builds who are naturally "effeminate", but they rarely larp as women and so do not try to enter female single-sex spaces.
Evolution has made women very good at instantly knowing whether an adult is male or female. If it is not instantly apparent, it becomes apparent quite quickly, watching how a person behaves: their gait, how men sit with legs apart, the sense of entitlement that they project. Men who larp as women do not realize the many "tells" they have that make women realize they are in fact male.
Have you actually seen very many men who are trying to pass as women? Or is this just an intellectual exercise for you?
...their gait, how they sit with legs apart which girls and women are taught not to do. Men who want to pass as women coach each other on Reddit and elsewhere on the many ways they have to alter their behavior, learned as boys, in order to move and carry themselves more like women. There are many "tells" that males who larp as women do not realize they give that show women they are men and not women.
Wow. How sexist. So a butch female that wears pants and sits with her legs open and has adopted behaviors that project as male would be discriminated on by you as being male.
LOL. Women are magical in that they can tell the real sex of a person by just watching them walk, etc.
Actually many men who don’t think with their dicks when looking at any slightly feminine form can tell the difference. This fully passing ‘thing’ is utter delusion . No male fully passes. How stupid to think otherwise !
Well, I'm a woman and I've known a few men who were very convincing as women. So convincing I didn't realize they were men until they told me. That was unusual even at the time, a long time ago, when what we then called transsexual men (vs. crossdressing men) for the most part wanted very much to pass as women, without a public fuss or any issues with restrooms. Since women's restrooms don't have urinals or open toilet stalls the only barrier to entry is one of appearance. Which is sort of ironic, as more masculine-appearing women routinely get challenged in public restrooms. As I well remember from my short-haired days.
Yeah well since there are numerous kinksters who are in there to record and to whack off, and since these people are also expressive of violence and threats of rape, and also just because public restrooms aren't their house and we don't have to share with strange men: they can stay the fuck out.
Your black and white position on this isn't going to win anything. I am sure you have been taking a dump at the airport bathroom with a biological XX person in the stall next to you, and you never noticed or could not tell. Likewise, I am sure females have been doing their business in a bathroom with other XY people and could not tell.
How are you suggesting we police that? What makes you think a real transitioned human like Bruce Jenner to Caitlyn Jenner is a threat to women in the bathroom. It seems overly paranoid, or just extreme.
You’re mighty casual with the risks to women, Frank.
What makes you think that Bruce Jenner isn’t? He’s admitted paraphilias involving *his own daughters*, they commonly cluster with others, often more dangerous.
Is it that he’s a hero to you? Deshawn Watson …
Is it that he seems nice? Ted Bundy …
It is *true* that some TIMs pass some of the time. And even that a few pass most of the time.
That doesn’t excuse your desire to extend a privilege to males in general (or at all).
Just as you ask how I’d “police” it, I ask you: are there going to be “passing police”?
How are women to know which TIMs have been certified as passing, or “safe”, and which haven’t?
The only answer is:
Hold all males accountable to the same rules. No XY in XX.
Enforce the laws we have, instead of excusing some subset of males that you (and if not you, who?) thinks women should be forced to accept in their private spaces.
And stop telling women what and who they should accept from males. Is that a clear enough response for you, Frank?
besides, passing in appearance doesn't make them "safe" it just means they didn't start with a super masculine frame. Not so common, given that boys are often identifiable in the cradle by their shape
It's clear what you believe, and I respect your right to believe it. I just disagree with that being a helpful or useful perspective. I see it as too black-vs-white given the realities of the human condition.
And you really don't answer the question about how your complete restriction on any XY entering a restroom for females gets policed.
Clearly the gestational process of gender development in the womb is fraught with diverse results that include gender dysphoria. In some cases there is genital ambiguity. But even without that, there can be other internal brain development that leads to sex identity dysphoria. And if those people transition, I don't see how restricting them from using a restroom matching their transitioned-to gender is a threat to anyone.
Frankly, I think what we need is construction code that makes all multi-person commercial restrooms unisex without urinals and with floor-to-ceiling lockable-from-the-inside stalls and no door into the restroom.
Frank, you’re every bit of a mansplaining tool as Steve.
Listen to some fucking women.
You don’t see how it’s a threat … because
you don’t know wtf you’re talking about.
And you would like to solve this with construction codes: have you read a damn thing about the research and realities of such spaces and how they put women and girls at greater risks than single sex facilities?
You’re quite the pair, and you caught me on an angry day.
I’m going to show a bunch of folks how callous and hubristic you are too.
“ And you would like to solve this with construction codes: have you read a damn thing about the research and realities of such spaces and how they put women and girls at greater risks than single sex facilities?”
I’d actually be very interested in seeing this research if you could stop screeching and insulting for long enough to share it.
I listen to my wife of 42 years, and she agrees with me. Keep biological men out of women's restrooms, but not those with diagnosed gender dysphoria that have been medically transitioned. She agrees that the only way to police it is by the appearance of the person.
Like I said, I respect your opinion, I just don't agree with it. Frankly, because I am, it is a bit weird that anyone would fear the sex intentions of a biological male that is medically transitioned to a female identity.
You don't seem to understand the construction code point, but it might be over your head.
Let me try again: it is incorrect to treat DSD or any ambiguous genitalia patient as equivalent in any way to Gender Dysphoria. GD patients have zero physical abnormality or impairment. Whereas a baby with DSD may well have external genitalia that are completely opposite of their sex chromosomes (although this type is sooo extremely rare as to be insignificant). The most common type of DSD is 21-hydroxylase deficiency form of Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia. A boy with this is straight up just a boy. A girl with this IS masculinized to varying extents - and they still know they’re girls. GD is all in someone’s mind.
Honestly applied empathy and logic typically lead to the same conclusion as the stats I give elsewhere. Try this...
Imagine living as a woman: 1 in 4 have experienced rape, and 99% sexual aggression to a greater or lesser degree, all the while conscious of an extraordinary strength differential rendering us vulnerable to any one male who tries it on.
Men really seem to struggle to imagine this, so here's a useful analogy...:
You're given a large bag of Maltesers. The vast majority are lovely. But a few of them will make you ill enough to remember the experience for life (these represent abusive experiences stopping just short of attack; we've almost all had these, and many of us remember one when that realisation of our own utter vulnerability hit, and hit hard). Meanwhile, one Malteser in the bag - just one - is cyanide. That would be the violent attacker, whether he's downright evil or mundanely opportunistic. Do you take and eat a Malteser, Frank?
Mixed sex spaces remove women's freedom to mitigate - and get some relief from - the risk we face.
NB. These proportions are reflected in corresponding statistics in various other nations.
You could also look into: research into levels of post-transition male violence and the variety of reasons for transitioning including AGP (on the latter, there are some very good firsthand accounts by medically transitioned transwomen eg. Debbie Hayton).
"And if those people transition, I don't see how restricting them from using a restroom matching their transitioned-to gender is a threat to anyone." I can see how, but only if the data shows it. Numerous studies have analyzed the prevalence of violent crime of transwomen and also of the overall male population. The data on crime and violent crime by transwomen has been tracked since at least 1973, studied within many countries, and then restudied. Data exists! Assuming you know the data exists and that you have examined it, are you suggesting that transwomen exhibit the same threat to women as other women do? Because that would have to be your conclusion from the data in order to make your statement. Have you examined the crime and violence data in regards to transwomen? It is possible to turn "I don't see" into an informed opinion, but 'seeing' might complicate your solidarity with trans-freedom.
Just how it was policed for the last 80 or so years since women were allowed to walk further than the shop because they were finally granted a public toilet for themselves only …
Men who are pretending to be women rarely pass as such. Women who pretend to be men, and who have taken enough testosterone, can generally pass more easily. The entire reason why the gender ideologues began experimenting on children is that they believe the males would "get better outcomes" if they don't go through normal male puberty. "Better outcomes" translates as "They would pass better as women." This isn't just my opinion, it is a fact that gender medical professionals are very open about.
Another reality that the gender ideologues are not open about is that men act like men after they have transitioned, they don't act like women. A lot of them are narcissistic and they don't change their entitled, self-centered, pushy personalities after they transition, no matter what body parts they hack off or how much estrogen they use.
You may think that trans identified females pass but as a gay man I can always tell the small manly robotic voiced women .. they have crap facial hair also.. no fooling me
There is no link between how 'true' someone's gender dysphoria is and how well they pass. And no woman knows what's going on in the head of the gender dysphoric man when he walks into the women's toilets. And the vast majority of 'trans women' today still have their male genitals intact.
women cannot tell the difference between a genuine transwoman (man) and a pervert, fetishist or chancer just by looking at them and for this reason, none of them should be able to come into our private spaces. They say they can't use the men's room because they fear being attacked but that's exactly how we women feel every time a male bodied person enters our spaces.
So awesome that you guys are finally reaching that conclusion. My other half still doesn’t get it. I too started out sanguine towards transppl in the wrong loo, but the complete failure to set any boundaries at all is worrying to me. I also agree with Frank that it cuts both ways: if single sex spaces are important for women then there must be at least some single sex spaces that are reserved for men as well.
The 'basic, common sense' efforts were to criminalize everyone who was even close. You never differentiated. The law never differentiated. Everyone was punished.
And now you want to act like you tried to meet us halfway? Lol
Well the situation is the same reversed. Any XX person that transitions medically to a male identity would be able to use the men's restroom.
I think the more recent never-ending general demonstrated entitlement is that women have no boundaries, refuse to have anyone else set any boundaries for them, but then also behave as Karens that can tell everyone else how they must live their lives.
The situation is not the same reversed you colossal buffoon.
Women, even on post pubertal T, do not gain the same physical advantage as males who go through puberty do.
JFC Frank.
“My wife agrees with me”
You’re probably such a nightmare when she doesn’t that she just strokes your ego.
Listen to JW
Read Kathleen Stock, Emma Hilton, and myriad others who’ve put in the work that you so breezily assume you’ve worked out all by your cognitively unimpressive lonesome.
Stop smelling your farts, Frank, you’re delusional from methane poisoning.
Alright man, that’s enough. Disagreement is welcome here, abuse is not.
Frank and others have tried several times to be reasonable and respectful. If you can’t express yourself more productively than screeching at people I’m going to ban you.
No, it's not. And if one person had been writing dozens of unhinged comments calling everybody who disagreed with them, however slightly, a Karen, I'd have said the same thing to them.
But I've already overlooked dozens of "Digital Canary's" far more pointed insults. There comes a point where people simply aren't contributing anything but toxicity.
I am quite sure that Frank and other men who comment as he does are "man enough" to take humorous comments like "Stop smelling your farts...you're delusional from methane poisoning."
Me too. In fact Frank messaged me to let me know that he's fine with the occasional idiot with low emotional control.
But as these "humorous comments" contribute nothing to the conversation, are obviously not going to change anybody's mind, and create a degree of toxicity that I think we could all do without (and which some people might reasonably find unpleasant), I'd rather people who can't communicate like grown-ups throw their little tantrums in somebody else's community.
Neither I, nor anybody else, can learn from someone who is “not here to persuade, but to “shame.”
All you’ve been doing here is indulging your ego. It’s painfully obvious that nothing you’re saying, and certainly not the way you’re saying it, will persuade or edify anybody. Nor is it meant to. It’s just you flattering yourself for an imagined audience.
Again, disagreement is welcome here, and if you feel you have something valuable to share (like that research on single use spaces), I’m sure many people would be glad to hear it.
But if all you want to do is grandstand and abuse people and make silly little threats about “the hard way” (believe me when I say you don’t even begin to intimidate me), then yes, you’ll have to do it elsewhere.
You know, you’re not the first person to say I’m funny. Glad you’re enjoying yourself.
I’m asking you for the third time for that research, I’d really like to learn. Otherwise, yeah, please share my work with larger accounts. Make sure thousands of new people see my work. What a terrifying threat that is for a content creator…😅
While I’m waiting for sagepub to stop being a pita, are you ever going to actually address your dismissal of your own pontification-related comment, Steve?
You and Steve need to take it outside. I agree with you substantively, Digital Canary. Read what I have written. But there is not point in you and Steve going at it like ping pong.
It's men's history-long 'redefining' of female boundaries with violence and force that is the point here. Go elsewhere for your bizarre little opportunistic wobble about 'Karens.' Jesus.
Whether a man has dysphoria or schizophrenia is irrelevant to women and girls needing their own single-sex spaces. Women and girls are not "support animals" for mentally ill males.
It seems to me that this debate (and several of the other debates over gendered spaces) are all downstream of a major issue: that women feel like men (categorically) are a threat to them. THAT problem needs addressing. Unfortunately, it's also a thorny one. But a woman in the situation of "unknown person in fenced space" isn't doing gender studies; she's just had her IFF tripped, and this mysterious individual who apparently does NOT respect boundaries wants to talk gender politics?
And bringing in FtMs just complicates things further. How comfortable are cis women sharing a restroom with them?
I do think society is becoming more gender-neutral, which will help.
"women feel like men (categorically) are a threat to them. THAT problem needs addressing."
Yes, this is clearly the underlying issue, but I don't see it going away any time soon. Something like 98% of sexual violence is perpetrated by men. 92% of it against women. Never mind general creepiness and inappropriate, stalker-ish behaviour.
Women's spaces are an imperfect solution to this problem. But they are a solution. Once we get to a point where women don't have to fear men behaving inappropriately/violently, the question of women's spaces will be moot.
“Once we get to a point where women don't have to fear men behaving inappropriately/violently, the question of women's spaces will be moot.”
Yeah, maybe it’ll be moot to *you*.
Likely not for any real world females who are actually familiar with the realities of male violence and living with the oppressive and omnipresent male gaze.
Seriously dude, get over yourself. And listen.
I’d be happy to point you toward many women who will take the time to make sure that you understand fully.
And in the meantime, please stop speaking for such women. You seem to have a good mind and the right motivation — don’t let yourself be part of the problem just because you’re too proud to admit a fault or failure.
Do you think the question of whether lesbians should share a changing room with straight women is moot? How about whether black women should share a bathroom with white women? Or maybe whether tall women should share spaces with short women?
To be clear, in the first two cases, there was spirited debate about these distinctions. But that debate is moot today. IF we one day arrive at a point where men pose no threat to women, the question will be equally moot. Note the IF.
I state clearly that we're a long way from that point. I personally don't believe we'll ever reach it. But recognising that if men no longer pose a threat to women, conversations about mitigating the threat men pose to women are moot, is not "pontificating." It is extremely rudimentary logic.
Also, I'm not attempting to speak for "women" because "women" are not a monolith who all think the same thing. I could just as easily point you to many women who welcome the abolition of sex segregation and think any man who declares himself a woman should immediately be granted unlimited access to women's spaces.
I disagree with those women.
So I've thought very carefully, spent a great deal of time listening to a variety of perspectives, and have come to my own conclusions.
That's what caring about an issue requires you to do.
If you want to be an ally of women, you need to get over yourself. If you simply want to be seen by some as an ally, so you can get social approval, while still damaging the cause you purport to support, keep doing what you’re doing.
"Maybe read what Doc Stock @kathleenstock — a professional philosopher — has to say about your pipe dream"
😅 Jesus. What is wrong with you?! It's not "my pipe dream." I'm saying now for the third time I don't think it'll happen. But yes, obviously a world where women aren't endangered by men would be a good thing. Aspiring to this point, even if it's never going to be fully realised, is obviously worthwhile. We've already taken significant strides in this direction in the past 50 years, say.
But yes, until that glorious day, I'm advocating unequivocally for the maintenance of female-only spaces. You're in the comments of an article I've written stating exactly that. So what's got you in quite such a state I'm not sure.
Anyway man, it appears to be futile trying to talk to you. Enjoy virtue signalling for your imagined audience, I guess. I'm sure all your posturing and insulting random people will be invaluable in the fight for women's equality.
Steve, you’re not “brilliant”, you’re just a defensive man who has a way with words sometimes.
Once for for the hard of self-reflecting: you are the one who wrote that “once we get to a point where women don’t have to fear men behaving inappropriately/violently, the questions of women’s spaces will be moot.”
And you are the one who had doubled, tripled, quadrupled down on being in the right.
As a woman, please stop speaking for us like you’re a spokesperson. Speak for YOURSELF. Why do people think they get to speak for an entire sex class lol?
I was about to spring to your defence Steve and say I didn’t notice any pontificating either and thought it was a brilliant article . Cheeky title though:D I thought you were on the other side for a moment. Actually just two days ago, I was coming out of a cubicle and noticed a man at the basins and he immediately said I’m so sorry. Is it okay if I just wash my hands quickly? The gents are away on the other side of the building“(which was true) it was no issue at all
Just out of curiosity, what are the stats on trans women’s violence against women? I’ve been at the receiving end of male sexual violence multiple times. Weirdly enough none of them wore dresses.
So, I doubt that very much/ other sources are giving me different info. But let’s accept it. Let’s say it’s 100% correct. The current situation is still not only not protecting women in women’s bathrooms - it’s actually endangering us far more.
Let me lay it out and you tell me what you think.
So our premise is - trans women are still somehow ‘men on the inside’, therefore dangerous to cis women. But we agree they are a very small part of the population. So if you asked an average woman would she be more comfortable in the same bathroom with a trans woman or with a cis man, can we agree it would probably be the cis man that causes more stress? As, in line with our previous exchange, most of us who have had harrowing experiences have had them with regular men, not trans women.
And here you will say ‘well of course!! All men should DEFINITELY stay out of women’s spaces, that’s the whole point of my article, didn’t you read it?
And I did. Except the issue we come to now is that trans men also exist. And I don’t know if you’re following that side of things - I feel like trans men are forever in the shadows somehow, no one ever brings them up in debates - but with how hormone therapy and such has developed, trans men look 100% like men. I’m talking beard, pecs, hurly burly man looks.
And those 100% male presenting people are now SUPPOSED to be in my bathroom. Because they were born female, right? And so far so good, I have nothing against either group of trans people in my bathroom.
But I wonder if you are seeing my issue already? If previously we said ‘well, any man can PRETEND to be a woman in order to gain access to women’s spaces’ - what we have done now is literally assured that they don’t even have to pretend. Any random dude without even combing his hair can now rock up to the women’s room and say ‘oh yeah I know I look like this, but I was born with a vagina.’
And, like….. am I gonna check?? Are you gonna check? Are we installing genital screening in bathrooms and are any of us comfortable undergoing that?? So effectively, this change literally throws the doors of women’s bathrooms open to any single man casual enough to say ‘oh yeah I was born female’.
Do you genuinely think that’s better and safer for us? Before at least they had to take hormones and pick out a dress.
"So if you asked an average woman would she be more comfortable in the same bathroom with a trans woman or with a cis man, can we agree it would probably be the cis man that causes more stress?"
No, this doesn't follow at all. Yes, trans women are a smaller percentage of the population than men. But if you're alone in a bathroom with one or the other, then your odds of being alone in the bathroom with one of them are 100%. Does that make sense? So their relative percentages in the population become irrelevant.
And let's also think about this:
"trans women are still somehow ‘men on the inside’,"
You say this as if it's some kind of controversial position, but what else could a trans woman possibly be? A trans woman is a man who wishes to be perceived as a woman. It is impossible to be a trans woman unless you're a man.
Trans activism has attempted to force-redefine the word "man" to mean...well, I'm not even sure! The collection of stereotypes associated with male behaviour? Anybody who identifies as a man (ignoring the circularity of this definition). I'd be very interested to hear how you're defining the word man here.
And more to the point, I've yet to hear *anybody* (and I've ben asking for at least five years now) explain in any kind of verifiable or objective way, what the difference between a trans woman and a man even is!
Until there is a genuine willingness to acknowledge the physical realities of trans women, until you can define "trans woman" or "woman" in such a way that you can unambiguously say that I, for example, am not one, you absolutely can't blame people for treating all trans women as "men."
As for the trans men issue, I've already written about it here. Funnily enough, I made the exact same point you did: trans men are often ignored in this debate and shouldn't be. But mainly because when you consider trans men the issues become even clearer.
First, the issue of "passing." Trans men who don't pass use the women's bathrooms. Why? We all know why. In the above-linked article, I even mention the story of an all-trans-men football team who went to great lengths to ensure that they would be able to have an entire changing room to themselves so they didn't have to get changed with men. Why? Again we all know why.
If a trans woman passes, they almost certainly already use the women's bathroom without causing any issues. But it's far, far harder for a trans woman to pass than it is for a trans man.
And the second, far more important issue is that men and women are different. I might be a little weirded-out if a woman were in the men's bathroom, but I wouldn't be afraid. I wouldn't worry that she was going to rape me or even seriously suspect that she'd behave inappropriately. So I have no issue with the men's bathroom being the "all genders" bathroom where trans women and trans men and men can all use the bathroom, and having a female-only bathroom for women.
You're right, trans women are a tiny percentage of the population. And so my position is that their desire to use women's spaces shouldn't override the desires of a far, far larger percentage of the population who would prefer to retain spaces that exist for people of their sex.
First off, thank you for taking the time to craft a thoughtful reply, I genuinely appreciate it. It's such a rare trait these days, on any side of any debate.
That said, I feel like some of your own points want to ask some of your other points some questions.
"But if you're alone in a bathroom with one or the other, then your odds of being alone in the bathroom with one of them are 100%" this does make sense by itself. But I don't think it disproves my point. Having an actual cis man in the bathroom would make most women more nervous. This is important because it ties to my second point, which I think you misunderstood.
So you have mentioned above how 'trans women have male pattern criminality', and yet you also say this - "If a trans woman passes, they almost certainly already use the women's bathroom without causing any issues." Which, for the record, I totally agree with. I am sure many of us have been in bathrooms next to trans women and have not noticed. So..... what gives? Should we be retroactively horrified? Where was the criminality? If men and women are so deeply different and we simply cannot allow a trans woman to use a 'women's space' - what of all those women who pass and do so, as you yourself point out, 'with no issue'? Doesn't that pretty clearly show it's fine if they are there?
'Ah yes,' you might say, 'but it is the OTHER kind of trans women who are the issue, the kind with the male pattern criminality!' And here we get into the issue of now being 'kinds' of trans women? Delineated by... how well they pass? Why would that be, if a 'man cannot change his essence' - how are these very unique trans women managing to pee next to me in peace? Would a trans woman passing less well be a trans woman who poses more danger to me? ....why??
Then we come to your point of 'oh, trans men don't want to be in locker rooms with cis men'. Why do you think that is? Because they don't feel they belong there, or because they feel those cis men might be hostile to them? What point does that possibly prove other than 'nobody wants to share enclosed spaces with cis men, because they tend to be the most molesty group of people out there'? I can easily imagine a group of gay men also not wanting to share a locker room with cis men, but I would not think that makes gay men 'not really men'.
Thennnn we come to your point of 'oh I don't mind a trans man in MY bathroom, the same way I don't mind a woman in my bathroom, because they do not intimidate me'. I agree. That makes sense. But my point was not about trans men in MENS rooms. My point was about trans men in WOMEN's rooms.
Because the plan of everyone using bathrooms according to birth-genitals means the hurliest burliest beardiest swolest trans man - and there are some pretty impressive specimens out there - gets to be in MY bathroom. Do you see what that does? A guy with a neck beard and arms the thickness of my thigh can come into MY bathroom. And if I go 'Sir this is the ladies' room', he can go 'oh you see I was born with a vagina.'
He can just say that. Do I know if he was really born a woman? Who is going to be checking? Do you get it? If everyone born female can go into a women's restroom, that means that ANY MAN AT ALL can go into ANY WOMAN'S RESTROOM, just as he is, and simply say 'oh I was born with a vagina. This is all from T shots'. You, you personally, could go into a women's bathroom, look the woman there in the eye and say 'yeah, I know it looks weird, but I was actually born a woman', and there you are, a CIS man, in the women's bathroom. Do you get why that is worse than what we had before?
"And more to the point, I've yet to hear *anybody* (and I've ben asking for at least five years now) explain in any kind of verifiable or objective way, what the difference between a trans woman and a man even is!" So on these questions I do agree it is difficult to define things in 'verifiable and objective ways'. It is. Because human beings are really complex and weird. I can try to do so in a roundabout way.
It is my personal belief, from everything I have seen, read and heard on the subject, that male/female is not so much a dichotomy as a spectrum. And yes, 98% of the people will fall relatively clearly on one of the two 'sides'. But that doesn't make it not a spectrum, because you have so many people who clearly don't fit either box neatly. Start just with the recent surge in massive bulky 'muscle mommy' type women in sports (think Ilona Maher for example, or Natasha Aughey, or Alicia Napoleon. Of course these women are women. But we can definitely see that Ilona Maher is, let's say, a different type of woman than, say, Ariana Grande. Women can have different amounts of muscle mass, testosterone, ambition, aggression, whatever. So can men.
Then you come to the cases where the body is clearly confused. You have people born with both sets of genitals. Before, doctors used to just let the parents choose which set to remove, and would raise the child in whatever gender the parents had picked. If that kid grew up to feel differently gendered, would we be surprised? Then we have weird mixes - male chromosomes with female genitals. Female genitals outside but undescended testes inside the body. Is it weird if these people grow up to not feel entirely the gender they are being raised as? Not really. They are the middle ground. Somewhere in between.
My belief is that genitals alone do not make a man. If you god forbid lost yours, you would not stop being a man. If someone had surgically removed them from you at birth, you would also not stop being a man. We all have our spot on the spectrum, that has to do with our body but also our hormones, our brain chemistry, our life experiences.
Some of the differences between the sexes ARE biological - but biology is not fond of strict binaries. We see that in our vast differences. We have very effeminate women, to kind of medium-feminine women, to clearly pretty darn butch women, to very androgynous people, to fairly effeminate men, to regular degree sort of masculine men to extremely hyper masculine men, it's much more than just 'box a and box b'.
Then of course we come to the fact that one thing that happens very often when we start introducing these firm rules about 'women's spaces' is that masculine seeming women - muscular, sporty, short haired type women - tend to start getting harassed about being 'in the wrong bathroom' and suspected of being trans. How would we protect them from this? Do they need to wear transparent pants? Do they not get the same consideration other women get, because they're 'performing their gender wrong'? Because I have heard zero personal experiences from my circle of friends saying a trans woman assaulted them in a bathroom, but I have heard stories from women friends who have been questioned over their gender in a women's bathroom. Even had security called on them. For not 'looking sufficiently feminine'.
I'm pretty sure you at least heard of the case of Imane Khelif, the women's boxing gold medalist at the last Olympics. There was a literal witch hunt after her because she 'looked too manly' to random people. Trying to police allowed levels of 'manliness' in women is not something I will ever be able to get behind, nor would I ever consider it 'protecting women'.
Anyway, very long story short, I personally would be fine with 100% unisex bathrooms, have worked in spaces that had unisex bathrooms, and have had no issues using them. But I am very much against random citizens gatekeeping other random citizens from spaces they feel 'belong to them more', on what are clearly pretty shaky pretenses.
😅 This reply is longer than the original article, so I don't think I'm going to get to every point/question. But I think most of the confusion is just about being pragmatic.
Yes, trans women maintain "male pattern criminality," because they're males. I'm still not sure what magical alchemy you believe happens that breaks trans women free from male patterns of thought and behaviour the moment they utter the magic words, "I identify as a woman."
But as a male, I can confidently report than not all males are rapists. I know that if I used a female bathroom the women in here would have nothing to worry about. I believe the same is true of a lot of men.
So while, in a simple, black and white world, trans women who pass would still all stay out of women's spaces that's simply not realistic.
As you and many others point out, there's no way to police that if a trans woman passes except for genital inspections. And trans women who pass have, at least, demonstrated sufficient commitment over a number of years, that we can be fairly confident they're not just using gender ideology as an excuse to perv at women. In fact, most trans women in this category are gay males. And if they pass, their appearance won't provoke the same reaction than mine did.
But you still haven't explained how trans women who DON'T pass are in any way distinguishable from men. If I say I identify as a woman now, do you unquestioningly believe me? Should I be allowed to use women's spaces with no questions asked? Would you consider any woman who wasn't comfortable with my presence a bigot? Should my desire to use a women's space trump the comfort of the women in them? These are the question you're not addressing.
As for trans MEN in women's spaces, yes, obviously they shouldn't be in there because they WILL provoke the same reaction that I did. But there's a false equivalence here, because you're overlooking the differing functions of women's and men's spaces.
Women's spaces exist to offer women privacy and protection from men. Men's spaces exist to give men a place to go while women enjoy that privacy and protection.
Men's spaces don't become less safe for men if you introduce men in dresses or women with stubble. That's why I think that ideally, men's spaces should be used as an "all gender space" and women's spaces should be for females. Because women's spaces DO become less safe for women (and therefore fail to serve their function) if men can simply opt their way in with a declaration.
I'm not going to get into the male/female spectrum argument except to say that even if we pretend that intersex people break the sex binary (they don't) they have nothing to do with trans people.
Imane Khelif is male. And therefore has physical advantages that should be disqualifying for female sport. Especially combat sport. It is so frustrating and sad that this simple fact has been reframed as "hate."
Never, in the history of sport, has your sporting category been defined by how you "feel" on the inside. Your sex is, in 99.98% of cases, a simple objective, verifiable-at-a-glance fact. And in those 0.02% of cases, like Khelif, it's still trivially verifiable. It just takes more than a glance.
On that note, Ilona Maher is not somewhere on a "spectrum" between male and female. She's female. And I'm sure she'd find it very offensive that you'd suggest otherwise. It's incredibly regressive to look at a tall or muscular woman and discount or diminish her womanhood because of that. Just as it's regressive to look at a boy who likes dolls or dresses or the colour pink and say he's a girl. I thought we'd left thinking like that behind in the 50s.
It seems that everybody who makes this kind argument confuses femininity with womanhood. But femininity is an optional performance that both men and women are free to embrace or reject. I think we'd agree that our society needs to go further to make feminine males and masculine females genuinely accepted in society.
But womanhood, as in the state of being an adult female human being, is not a performance. And isn't delegitimised by being strong or tall or capable. Only by being male.
Effeminate males are still men. Weak males are still men. Gay males are still men. Males with breast implants are still men. As you yourself say, males who lose their penises are still men. So I'm still not clear at what point you think they become women.
Lastly, it's great that you're "100% fine with unisex bathrooms." But your boundaries don't and shouldn't set the bar for all women, right?
So the question is, as I've asked elsewhere, is it reasonable that many women DO want that privacy in a changing room or a hospital or a rape crisis centre?
Is it reasonable for a woman with a disabled, non-verbal child to want to ensure that her child only receives intimate care from another woman? Or for a woman who needs life-saving surgery to request that only women provide intimate care for her without having her surgery cancelled out of spite?
Is it reasonable for a woman who has been raped by a man to refuse to refer to her rapist as "she" in court? Is it reasonable for her to want to recover in a space where she knows she won't encounter men?
I think it absolutely is. And I think they should be able to get it without being demonised or threatened. Don't you?
Ok things are getting good! First off yes, I do apologize for the length- but I really feel this is what it takes to truly discuss these issues, which are full of complexity and nuance. To truly understand the other person’s opinion and to truly investigate our own. One should not be taking up a stance unless one is ready to defend it vigorously- and rigorously.
I massively agree with the pragmatism issue. I think we have to be pragmatic when dealing with these things. But I think the solution you are championing is the least pragmatic of all. It purports to want to get all trans women - even the passing ones who ‘have shown commitment’ and admittedly cause no trouble- out of ‘women’s spaces’, but allows CIS men INTO those spaces, either as security guards hunting down ‘masculine loking persons’ (who more often than not turn out to be just masc presenting women), or as regular brazen cis MEN, who can now claim ‘oh no I have a vagina trust me bro’. When letting everyone go where they more or less look like they belong avoids more unpleasant situations. Not all, because the world is not perfect, but more.
And I get your perspective where you want a special split that is objectively not being discussed in society right now - where everyone except 100% feminine presenting cis women is in men’s bathrooms - saying ‘oh it won’t bother the men’. But I, as you, am not concerned about the men being bothered. I am concerned about all those OTHER people being bothered. I firmly believe anyone who is not a cis man is 98% more likely to seek to use a women’s bathroom specifically to avoid sharing the space with cis men, and not ‘to perv on women’. We have stalls anyway.
This way you create some mystical category of ‘the real true woman’, who is the only one who deserves any social protection or consideration, while everyone else, be it men, trans women, trans men, and to me most crucially just regular-ass women who tent to look a little more masculine- all get to bear the brunt of that ‘special protection’ by being perpetually harassed while trying to pee.
On the subject of Ilona, if you re-read what I wrote, you will see I also said she is clearly a woman. Obviously. And obviously I also feel masculine looking women are just as much women as feminine presenting women. But masculine presenting women are probably the largest victim group of the system you are proposing. Ilona is ok because she is famous. But imagine a non famous woman, built like her with a jawline like hers, walking into a ‘gender-policed’ bathroom.
What do you think happens? You think she is treated with dignity and respect or does she get the security guys called on her? How does she feel when the security guys get there? Is she asked to ‘prove’ her gender? How does she prove it??? This harassment is already happening, and I am pretty confident it largely outnumbers the number of actual assaults by trans women on cis women in women’s bathrooms.
Do we just say that is ‘pragmatically how it has to be’? Or do we reconsider?
Or do we value the safety of masculine looking women LESS than the safety of feminine looking women? If yes, why?
So, you mention that you consider ‘passing trans women to be gay males’. Does that mean you believe gay people DON’T have ‘male pattern criminality’? Why would this be?
‘If I say I identify as a woman now, do you unquestioningly believe me? Should I be allowed to use women's spaces with no questions asked?’ - see, this is really the point. You can do that IN BOTH SCENARIOS. In the ‘only cis females in women’s bathrooms’ scenario you can claim you are a transitioned born female. In the current context you can say ‘you feel female’. In either case CIS MEN CAN STILL LIE to gain access to women’s spaces. The protection does NOT meaningfully increase. But honestly, yes, I believe you more if you are going to the trouble of taking hormone injections and picking out a nice dress. No man who has ever menaced me would have bothered to do that.
I mean the whole idea, knowing how difficult it actually is to gain access to hormone therapy etc, that men would be going through all that just to attack women, when the men who want to attack women CLEARLY HAVE ZERO ISSUES already doing that, is very far fetched. Especially since we know that over 70% rapists never see a day of jail time. Like if I wanted to champion protection of women, I would start there. I feel like the impact might be immeasurably larger.
To your last point, I absolutely agree nobody should be threatened or harassed or denied medical care. Doctors should care for everyone equally and they do every day - Black doctors and nurses treat openly racist people, women doctors treat openly misogynistic men, all doctors treat people even if they happen to have swastika tattoos. The cases you are speaking about sound extremely specific to me, so I will go out on a limb to say they are not a massive problem. What percentage of gynecologists are men? In my experience a fair number. Somehow we’re not up in arms over that. Should we have our pick of doctors? If it is feasible. But I have never picked a surgeon either for myself or my kid. That’s not how hospitals tend to work. Could there be exceptions for especially traumatized people? I am not against it. But seeing how hard it is to get any sort of medical care these days, again, that’s far from our biggest issue.
Do you think more women were ‘in danger of a trans doctor performing an intimate surgery’ on them or were more trans people in danger of being refused treatment because people don’t accept them as ‘real’?
Basically I think we agree on a large portion of the topic. The main difference between our stances is that I am less comfortable with sacrificing a series of minorities for the comfort of one specific group we somehow deem special and particularly vulnerable. Trans people are at a MARKEDLY HIGHER RISK of EXPERIENCING sexual assault and not committing it. Yet we should shove them all in bathrooms with men, who commit the majority of that assault?
Doesn’t sound like fair and equal treatment to me.
"But I think the solution you are championing is the least pragmatic of all. It purports to want to get all trans women - even the passing ones who ‘have shown commitment’ and admittedly cause no trouble- out of ‘women’s spaces’, but allows CIS men INTO those spaces, either as security guards hunting down ‘masculine loking persons’ "
Haha, no, this obviously isn't what I'm suggesting. I think very few people, other than the absolutely most extreme weirdos, want anything like this.
I 'm suggesting an honest recognition that a trans woman is, in fact a man. Because from there, we can have an honest conversation about under which circumstances, if any, a man should be allowed into a woman's space.
You, at least, are honest enough to admit that what you're advocating for is unisex spaces, aka, the abolition of sex segregation. I think this is a terrible idea, but at least it allows us to talk about why we have sex segregation and all the situations in which sex matters more than this meaningless concept of gender.
There are lots of times when I'd rather not use men's spaces. Men's toilets are often super gross, some men are really weird in men's changing rooms, if, heaven forbid, I were ever sent to prison, I'd be terrified to be held in the men's wing and would much rather be in the women's. Male violence is a scary thing. And I say that as a larger and stronger than average man.
But while the problem of male violence absolutely needs to be solved, I don't understand why you think it's women's responsibility to put themselves in greater danger to solve it. You talk about "sacrificing minorities" for the comfort of one specific group, but women are also a marginalised group, and you're talking about sacrificing that very significant group for the comfort of a minority group that you can't even define in a coherent way!
Again, once we can distinguish trans women unambiguously from men, I think we could have this conversation much more easily. But until then, trans women aren't even a minority! Because you're advocating for all men to be treated in exactly the same way.
The percentage of men who would rather not go to a men's prison, say, is roughly 100%. So in your view, why shouldn't they also be able to claim refuge in women's prisons? What's the difference? Seriously, this whole conversation is a waste of time until you address this question: what is the difference between a man and a trans woman? How can we ever tell the difference?
As for Ilona, you say she's clearly a woman (although you also say that she "clearly [doesn't] fit either [male or female] box neatly"), but WHY is she clearly a woman? If, as you claim, male and female are two ends of a spectrum, why do you cite her as an example of someone who is further from the female end of the spectrum than Kim kardashian, say? If someone like Dylan Mulvaney is also a woman, WHAT DOES THE WORD "WOMAN" MEAN???!!!
I'm sure Ilona walks into women's restrooms all the time. She looks like a woman. A big woman, yes, but a woman. Masculine looking women Do, and always have faced more scrutiny in women's spaces. I've heard several stories about that, and usually they're resolved the moment she opens her mouth or the other person gets a clear look at them. Despite the common attempts to obfuscate this fact, human beings are very, very well adapted to distinguish between men and women.
But this is still largely beside the point. Some men are small and slight enough to be able to put on a dress and walk into a woman's bathroom. If they grew out their hair and had a shave, maybe they wouldn't even attract much attention. BUT I STILL DON'T THINK THEY SHOULD DO THIS. Because they're men.
Yes, men can walk into women's bathrooms. I could easily have pushed past that woman and had a pee in one of the stalls if I'd really wanted to. But doing so would have a deliberate violation of women's boundaries. This is not a benign or innocent act. You seem to be totally overlooking this fact. Again, the reason there are all these people asking how to find the "courage" to use women's spaces is because they know they're not supposed to be using them.
I'm happy to admit that genuine trans women (I'll use transsexual for clarity) complicate this dynamic. If someone with diagnosed gender dysphoria, who has undergone treatment and transition, uses the women's bathroom, I struggle to see an issue with that. I know many women in the comments here would disagree, but as we've agreed, chances are they've already shared a bathroom with someone like this.
The issue is this new and insane idea that any man, simply by saying he identifies as a woman, should be treated in the same way. The only way to accommodate this particular brand of insanity is, as you say, to do away with sex segregation altogether. And this would trample over the wishes and boundaries of well over 50% of the population (lots of men would object too) to satisfy the desires of a few people who are confused about the distinction between sex and gendered stereotypes.
Lastly, on male gynaecologists, yes, male gynaecologists exist, but they're largely a hangover from the days when women simply couldn't be doctors. Now that's changed, the majority are women, and I'm pretty sure the trend will grow.
Also, it's fairly routine for women to ask to be seen by a female gynaecologist. And the bigger issue here is that they get to choose. Women in your sex desegregated future, wouldn't get to choose who shared their spaces. Even now, lesbian bars and apps are being shut down if they even attempt to be woman only. Women are being slandered as bigots and having their gym/spa memberships revoked if they object to unambiguous men using their spaces. Men who could easily use the male spaces without any issue.
I always get the impression when I talk to your side of this debate that you're only ever thinking of some dainty, 5'5" twink who would never hurt a fly. And sure, these people absolutely exist. But can you also recognise that the majority of males are not like this. And that there are several counter examples that need more serious consideration than, "just let them do what they want and we'll take action once they rape someone!"?
Women only spaces will always be needed to assist women to lead full lives in the public sphere. At work, school/ university, in public shopping centres. Women need to be in these places and need to be able to attend void, defecate, change menstrual products without males present. Pregnant women, women with any kind of disability, mothers with small children - all need the safety of women only facilities even more. Men, even ones who dress like women, in women's spaces will drive the most vulnerable women out of public life. This is deeply unjust. And the women who blithely agree that men who think they are meant to be women are fine in women's facilities - are not thinking of the cancer patient who is struggling with a new stoma. Or the women who have been abused before. Or whose religion forbids them being near unknown men. Women are a diverse group. And many have every reason to be fearful of strange men. And any man who feels he 'should' use the women's toilets as a matter of principle is strange indeed.
Have you considered that male violence is inevitable, and is something to be managed, not eliminated? I think men should be steered away from violence & given healthy outlets, but I also think women can be encouraged to actively probe men, try to figure who’s manipulative & violent. Current internet feminism doesn’t want to acknowledge that women can & should play an active role in managing male violence, they say “it’s not our problem.” But men & women are interdependent, so I think it’s everyone’s problem.
I think it would be fair to state that women's advocacy has played an enormous role in managing or mitigating the impact men's violence from the early development of women's shelters, to raising awareness, to working towards a justice system that is beginning to take it seriously and so on and so on. I think feminism has been very active in this way. But solving the root problem of male violence towards women and children is not a something that women should be asked to do and I think asking women to actively probe men to find out if they are violent is a bit like suggesting a game of Russian roulette.
Actively probing people is a life skill. It's only like playing Russian roulette if you're bad at it. If a man is violent to a woman that's a terrible thing, but you talk about "solving the root problem of male violence." I think that problem can be mitigated, but not solved. The feminist strategy has been to put all the responsibility on men, and that has worked to some extent, but I think it's having severe diminishing returns.
When people suggest, as I did, that women be active and probe, feminists generally reject it, as you did, and say it's unreasonable, or victim-blaming. But do you really think women shouldn't probe and be active? To me that's just part of being an adult, and feminism should encourage women to be active, to probe and investigate, as they explore the world.
Women 'feel' like men are a threat to them? Dear God. Read the Dominic Pelicot case as a starting point. Read stats on voyeurism in women's toilets, the images uploaded to the net, as a growing category of porn. Don't top there. Men ARE a threat to women. Not all men but god knows enough that no woman gets to feel safe.
The vast majority of men are honorable, but there’s no way to read intentions at first glance. The old line about “all men are rapists” is dead wrong, but given the size differential, women just have to be careful, unfortunately.
...and I suppose, having rejected the cis/trans diffentiator, you are going to turn around and say that trans people don't believe there are biological differences?
Wrong sex hormones make you ill, try asking all the de transioners about their stories. Or the vaginal atrophy , serious arthritis , cancer etc that it causes you stupid fool
And yet, they are used all the time for menopause and trans people do far better with them than without.
Sounds like puberty blockers, which work just fine for cis kids with precocious puberty but have all sorts of life-wrecking consequences when used by trans kids.
People have been changing sex since 1956. Rejecting that because it doesn't fit into your worldview is a bit ironic, given that you insist we are the ones to reject reality.
Are you serious? You delusional little muppet. Biological sex is biological sex. There is no queries or confusions around this. You are talking utter sh*te. Men can never EVER become women. Not in any world especially not in this one. Take your ‘dogma’ and shove it up your huge hoop
Women are fine sharing bathrooms with FtM. They are still women. Lesbians - still women. But MtF make me want to carry knives everywhere i go. And i have taught my girls the right places to slash and stab for quick bleed out (yes, we butcher). If they are in that position, getting them mad only makes it more dangerous. Better is arterial blood and possible death.
As the “trans” cult loses support, as detransitioners get more publicity, it is becoming more openly violent snd murderous. They shouldn’t be allowed on planes.
By the way, the “real ones” have Gender Identity Disorder, not “gender dysphoria.” The former appears around age 4-6 and is lifelong; the latter appears shortly after getting on social media and most outgrow it in a few years.
But by then many have destroyed their health with hormones and their bodies with surgery. GD has no diagnostic criteria past self-declaration and is closely linked with other psychiatric disorders.
It's all culture bound and what we know is gleaned through different eras and with the gatekeeping of the time. Traditional transexuals have always been motivated to confirm the born in the wrong body narrative but doesn't mean we have any evidence it's true.
...motivated because that was literally the only way they were allowed to access care.
You are taking a 'tradition' caused by cis doctors refusing to help anyone who didn't fit into their preferred mould and assuming that it is what hand people actually wanted.
Hi Steve! This is one of the first essays of yours I’ve read in at least a year after dropping off the face of the internet. It’s been a very interesting and disturbing one. I left twitter, TikTok, etc. a long time ago so I miss a lot of these happenings. As someone who’s quite present in my local queer and trans communities, I was absolutely horrified reading the many posts and articles you linked. It definitely confirmed my decision to stay off those circles of the internet, but also gave me a lot of insight into the fear of and opposition to trans people. The behavior you outlined in this article is genuinely abhorrent and also a very accurate representation of the fears I hear cis people expressing. Like exactly. And it was very interesting because this kind of stuff would be so quickly condemned in my personal social circles, so I never understood where all these fears were coming from. I’d like to think that the majority of real trans communities are the same and that the crazies flock to X, but I can’t be sure. I have a question though! At what point would you say a trans person could/should use a restroom they identify with? Would you ever consider it acceptable? Only if they fully pass as cis and nobody would think otherwise? I’m curious!
"At what point would you say a trans person could/should use a restroom they identify with? Would you ever consider it acceptable? Only if they fully pass as cis and nobody would think otherwise?"
Yeah, this is a tricky question. The easy answer is "when they fully pass."
There are lots of trans women who wouldn't have provoked that horrified reaction from the woman in the bathroom because they look like women. Right now, and for many years, there have been trans women using female spaces without causing any problems.
The problem is, the question of whether one passes is VERY subjective. Especially in today's insane climate. There's a whole echo chamber on social media built around convincing people who very clearly don't pass at all that they're Gal Gadot. Plus, there's the whole "trans women don't owe you femininity" wing of trans activism that claims that anybody, even a bearded rugby player with hairy shovels for hands becomes a woman the instant they say they identify as one.
But yeah, the more I think about it, maybe the problem is the whole concept of "passing."
Because the question isn't what you can fool people into believing, the question is what is actually true. Trans women are men who wish to be perceived as women. That's absolutely fine. 95% of the time the way you're perceived is all that really matters. But I think it's a huge mistake to think it's cruel or "transphobic" if there are times when they have to defer to their biology.
So my preferred solution, which some public spaces are already adopting, is to make men's toilets gender-neutral spaces where it's normal to see all "genders" using them, and leave female spaces for females.
Who knows, in a few generations, maybe this would lead to a world where it becomes so normal to see male- and female-presenting people in a single restroom that the concept of gendered spaces fades away on its own. But the testing ground for that should be male spaces, where there is no increased risk caused by mixing. Not female spaces.
"Sex deception is still deception, just as any crime is a crime even if it’s not identified/prosecuted."
Sure, but deceiving people about your sex isn't a crime. And in the majority of cases it would be absolutely ridiculous to treat it as one. Again, 95% of the time, perception is what matters (an obvious exception is sports).
If a guy wants to walk around the world presenting in a stereotypically feminine way, that's up to him. If he fools you, that's not his problem. The problem is managing his interaction with women's spaces.
C'mon Steve, if he fools you, that's not his problem? You got 90% of the way but didn't want to commit to your own views?
Think of Boy's Don't Cry - while the men are the true evil here, it's clear to me the protagonist doesn't get meaningful consent from her partner. Where else is it suddenly ok to lie about basic facts?
I get that someone can adopt a gender identity of the opposite sex and live without much issue, but it wouldn't be acceptable to anyone's standards to withhold this info to a potential intimate partner, for example. This means passing people can probably get by just fine but the key thing is they do actually need to accept who they are, because that is just reality. You actually can't be something you're not.
“Where else is it suddenly ok to lie about basic facts?”
I haven’t seen Boys Don’t Cry, so I’m not getting the reference, but people lie all the time. And again, in 95% of cases, it’s not viewed as a crime of any sort.
That doesn’t mean I think lying is okay. But dressing as a woman/man is obviously not lying in the sense that anybody uses the word. Otherwise fancy dress parties would be filled with “liars.” Not to mention the millions of “lies” that would be being told daily by makeup and plastic surgery.
If you’re talking specifically about lying to coerce someone into bed, that’s obviously wrong. But that’s a very specific case that wasn’t under discussion and would fit into the 5% of cases where perception isn’t all that matters.
Really not sure what you’re taking issue with or how you think I’m being inconsistent.
It is not whether he fools someone (btw misgendering some of the activists would say). It is when he demands that you accept that he literally is a woman and not a man. I have met “feminine” trans, none convince and the most convincing only gets away with for a couple of minutes at best in close proximity. Distance is hardly a factor in justifying this nonsense. Live their lives and let women live theirs.
“It is when he demands that you accept that he literally is a woman and not a man.”
Yes, agreed. But we weren’t discussing this scenario. We were talking about the potential criminality of mistaking a man for a woman.
And even if you believe you’ve never done this (spoiler:you almost certainly have) transition surgeries/hormones are only ever going to get better. There will absolutely be a point when trans women pass most of the time. And the groundwork for that point needs to be laid now.
This makes perfect sense. While I do understand that this may create fear among trans men of violence in male spaces, why should women be the ones to accommodate what trans men think they need?
But the follow on would be what your reaction would be if you went ‘across the hall’ to the men’s bathroom and a female presenting trans man was there. What would your reaction be?
“ what your reaction would be if you went ‘across the hall’ to the men’s bathroom and a female presenting trans man was there. What would your reaction be?”
Just to be clear, I presume you’re meaning trans identifying man here? Not what most people mean when they say trans man?
If so, I’d be a little surprised I guess, but no big deal. Even if this person passed fully as female, I’d be maybe minimally uncomfortable, but that discomfort wouldn’t come with any fear that they’d hurt me or do anything inappropriate.
It’s funny, one of the Reddit posts I saw while researching this was a trans woman raging because his university had designated the men’s as the “inclusive” “all-gender” bathroom and had left the women’s for women.
He had an option, everything was fine, but he could no longer justify invading the women’s.
And exactly how many pass? Almost none. But the clue is in the word, pass. If they also pass as under 18, would they get into minor’s spaces? If you PASS, then you are NOT. Live your life as you please but without forcing others to live their lives according to your self perception.
I don’t know. Nor do you. Largely because trans women who pass, by definition, aren’t read as trans women.
Yes, very obviously trans women are not women. But if a trans woman passes as a woman, then there are certain situations where them living as they please is based on YOUR perception.
There’s a good chance, for example that you’ve passed a trans woman on the street, or even shared a bathroom with one, and felt zero discomfort because you perceived them as a woman. So, and this is a serious question, what do you suggest doing with this person?
I’ve been unequivocal in my support for women’s spaces. And, of course, spaces like prisons and rape shelters and sports are different and should be managed based on sex regardless of presentation. But total absolutism seems silly as well as obviously unenforceable.
Curious where you think trans women who have been raped should go for support.
Or if you think that trans women's choices upon going to prison should be torture by constant rape (2000 times in 3 years was a published example) or torture via solitary confinement.
I feel no discomfort in meeting or dealing with trans. My non recognition of trans identified males as women is not based on my discomfort levels, as it doesn’t bother me. The passables I have met, are only passable at a distance, close contact generally tells me who is who and what is what. At least we agree on the issue of prisons which has always been my main area of concern on the issue, one I had written about prior to setting up substack and possibly won’t return to, anytime soon.
“The passables I have met, are only passable at a distance, close contact generally tells me who is who and what is what.”
Again, you can’t possibly know this. It’s like saying you can always tell when someone is lying. By definition, the lies you didn’t detect appear to you to have been truth. So you assume they were true.
Similarly, any women you didn’t detect as trans appeared to be women. So you assumed they were women.
I was about to say the same. I know it's an ancient word that has been used in scientific terms for a very long time but I'm simply a woman. My sexual preference is my own business.
Hi! I am actually a fellow (almost) woman and while I understand where you’re coming from, cis isn’t a derogatory word nor a prefix. It’s just an adjective people use for clarity when trans people are involved in the discussion. It comes from the Latin preposition meaning “on this side of” as opposed to trans which is “the other side of”. The word is not meant to degrade your womanhood any more than adjectives like “white” or “brunette” would. Although I apologize if it’s been used that way towards you in the past. People can be shitty.
First, it assumes that people are male or female because of their gender identity rather than their biological sex. For people who believe that biological sex is real and that acknowledging it is important for purposes of rights, safeguarding and clear communication, using "cis" is therefore a loaded term.
Second, while I'd say that many people who espouse gender identity ideology (by which I mean the belief that we are male or female because of gender identity rather than sex) don't wish to reify sex stereotypes, in practice that tends to be what gender identity boils down to. Eg a little boy will play with dolls or want to wear dresses; this is taken as proof he is "really" a girl. Stereotypes limit both men and women but they tend to be more harmful for women and girls. To call a woman "cis" is therefore taken to mean that she identifies with the stereotypes associated with her sex, stereotypes many women find degrading.
In your explanation of the term you say it just means "this side of" - can you expand on this? This side of what?
So just for clarity, whether or not you agree with it: nobody (at least out of the properly informed people I’ve come across) is claiming that gender identity determines whether you are male or female.
The argument that you’re likely remembering is a little bit different. It states that sex and gender and different concepts. Sex is a permanent, biological trait. Things like chromosomes, hormones, genitalia, male vs female etc are part of sex.
Gender is a social construct that we have developed around the biological reality of sex. This does not mean that gender is not real, that argument is silly and confusing imo. Gender is a complex series of learned behaviors and mannerisms that we replicate over generations. People sometimes object to this saying that it boils gender down to stereotypes, but that’s kind of what we’re addressing when we say gender isn’t binary. One does not have to conform to all gendered behaviors to be a woman, man, etc. Some people feel the need to create additional labels across that spectrum, but that’s not mandatory.
In summary of this point, people are arguing that gender identity determines gender. Not that it determines sex. And if they are arguing it determines sex they’re being silly and are factually incorrect.
Second, you gave an example of “gender ideology”, that a young boy will play with dolls and wear dresses and people will say he is really a girl. Now, there are plenty of crazy people in the world. So I will not deny that someone out there believes something like that, nor that you’ve witnessed someone say something similar.
However, it’s important to note that (and this is coming from someone who knows dozens of real life trans people and even more people who support them) almost nobody actually believes that. Like I have really, truly, never met a single person, trans or otherwise, who would look at a boy playing with dolls and say he is a girl. Again not denying that you’ve seen it. But the internet amplifies rage inducing opinions and it’s important to keep that in mind.
Regarding your point about stereotypes, I agree they are harmful. But when people say “cis” to refer to people, we’ll use women as an example, they are not labeling that woman as a “stereotypical girly girl” and saying that is what defines her womanhood. They are saying that the woman was born as a female and is comfortable with the gender that comes as the default for it in our society. I know plenty of cis women who are not particularly feminine.
Cis = someone who identifies with their gender assigned at birth. This is most people, so the adjective cis is rarely needed unless we’re discussing trans people, in which case it’s a helpful distinction.
So I was explaining the linguistic origin of the term. It’s a Latin preposition that means “this side of”, as I said. Some other examples of English prepositions: Around, across, within, between, beyond, despite, etc.
These words don’t mean anything on their own and cis is especially confusing since it’s Latin.
To answer your question directly. Cis can mean on this side of anything. When referring to people who are not trans, the original term is actually “cisgender”. It was later shortened to cis in certain contexts for convenience.
The terms cis and trans can also be found in chemistry and cellular biology. We have record of them being used to describe gender and or sexuality dating back to over a century ago.
"Gender is a social construct that we have developed around the biological reality of sex."
I think this is actually the sticking point for many people, myself included.
I've yet to see how "gender," as it's used by some members of the trans community, is anything more than, the collection of stereotypical male/female behaviours and expectations that appeals to a particular individual.
And by this definition, it seems obvious that there are as many genders as there are people. So while, yes, those stereotypical behaviours and expectations are socially constructed, we still see, in every single person, a different constellation of those stereotypes. And, indeed, we see many women who defy those stereotypes in various ways while still being women.
p.s. On "almost nobody believing" that a boy who plays with plays with dolls is really a girl, I've lost count of the number of times I've seen people making arguments exactly like this.
The article I've just linked to has a few. Here's trans charity Mermaids showing off training materials that literally presents gender on a continuum from G.I Joe to Barbie (https://x.com/steevqj/status/1755353186687180906?s=20). Trans reddit is filled with people explaining that they knew they were trans as children because they liked playing with dolls or wearing their mother's makeup.
It's always difficult to get a true sense of how prevalent a certain attitude is within a group. I try to be very careful about painting in broad strokes. But I think the viewpoint is more common than you're painting it here.
“nobody (at least out of the properly informed people I’ve come across) is claiming that gender identity determines whether you are male or female.”
This just isn't true. Gender recognition certificates change a record of someone being male to being female, or vice versa. The whole problem of males in women's sports and in women's spaces rests on the claim that these people are now, for all practical purposes, the opposite sex to the one they were born.
The Sandie Peggie case in Scotland involves a nurse who was suspended for objecting to a male person in the female changing room. In the witness box this male person - a medical doctor - claimed to be biologically female. None of the NHS witnesses defending the treatment of Peggie will admit that Upton is male.
Gender identity is a bait and switch. We are asked to accept that a male person is female but as that is self-evidently untrue, a middle step is fabricated - we are asked to accept him not as female, but as a woman (what does “woman” mean? Insert circular definition). He then claims the right to spaces and resources reserved for female people. Alan Sokal has gone into more detail about the use of the word woman and how in practical terms it still means adult human female.
Theo, cis states that gender identity takes priority over biological sex, that is the conflict at stake regardless of your pontification around sex and gender. What defines Man and Woman.
Others have responded with the same point but using cis and trans woman as a label priorities gender identity over biological sex. A trans women is a woman because they have a female gender identity, they are a kind of woman. If biological sex were prioritized the same person would be a trans man, a man that is trans in appearance, or has a female gender identity, if you believe in such things (I don't). Trans man, emphasizing biology, is of course confusing for people who are adjusted to current usage, so trans-identified man is what we should use, as it respects reality.
It isn't for YOU to decide what WE consider to be derogatory. Arguably, "tr**ny" and "ni***r" aren't derogatory to some, but I'd like to see you call Stephen Halliday the former, or shout out the latter in the middle of Brixton.
Also, after looking back at my comment, I don’t specifically refer to women at all in it. So I’m unsure what term you would have preferred I use there. Non-trans-people? That’s what cis means.
I’m having a hard time following your train of thought here. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m working off of a couple assumptions based on your post history. You believe that sex determines your gender, and thus that trans women are actually men and vice versa for trans men. Wouldn’t trans people also fall under the category of “men and women” in that case? If gender is binary and can’t be changed, everyone is either a man or a woman. So how are those two categories helpful for distinguishing trans people from people who are not trans? This is why I find cis to be a useful term.
That is certainly correct. There are only men and women. Trans is used to describe one category, which in itself means you don't need to put a label on the rest of us.
Do you believe, as Theo says, that sex determines gender? (I just think that sex is sex, and gender is an exasperating term which has some use in describing social norms but tends to be unhelpful when talking about individuals).
Saying things like this does not make you persuasive. It just makes you appear ignorant of the facts.
It is not, generally speaking, illegal for a man to enter a female space. In fact, given the current ridiculous state of the law, it could be considered discriminatory to prevent a man from entering a female space. We've seen this play out several times with women being ignored or even penalised when they object to men in gym changing rooms and public bathrooms.
It seems you think it's valiant to be absolutist and to brook no nuance, but this approach causes more problems than it solves. We obviously agree on the importance and value of female-only spaces. But you're not going to solve this problem by yelling at it or high-horsing everyone who acknowledges a little more nuance than you do.
I suspect that is not the case. I do have a male friend who likes to hear women peeing but I'm absolutely certain he doesn't visit women's toilets to do so.
You absolutely certain about that libby ? I wouldn’t be so certain, we have precisely no idea what others we claim to be friends do in their private life and knowing he has that pervy interest it’s potentially not just where he leaves it lol !!
That in no way changes the fact that there are AGP males who do enter female spaces for more than just peeing (themselves).
Do you truly believe that being possessed of a “female gender identity” magically comes with a guarantee that an individual’s male pattern violence, physical advantage over women, and even paraphilic behaviours are eliminated?
Given that "make pattern violence" claims are based on one study from Sweden that doesn't show anything if the sort, and hormones do eliminate physical advantage in about two years, and 'paraphilic behaviours' after pretty obviously you projecting creepy cis men onto trans women...
And it’s “male” pattern violence. If you’re going to scare quote something, at least get it right.
Dhejne et al’s study absolutely *does* show male pattern violence among trans identifying males: they simply neglected to include the rather obvious analysis in their paper, as it would (of course) invalidate their biases (and yours):
Whether “cis” or not, males are still males. Or as the UK ruled, men.
As for hormones eliminating physical advantage after 2 years … you again display your overwhelming biases and underwhelming appreciation of academic scholarship:
Read those and weep for your BS claim that “hormones do eliminate physical advantage” (ever!):
Males are larger on average than females, as we are a sexually dimorphic species. Hormones don’t make trans identifying males shorter, nor do they affect myriad other aspects of male advantage (see Hilton 2020 from the link above). And comparing a bunch of out of shape TIMs to fit & athletic women … well that’s just deceptive study design.
Do you have any valid arguments or *evidence* in support of your claims?
Or are you going to flounce away now? If so, do try to stick the landing — you folks always look so silly when you land face first.
So that’s a “no” to having any evidence then. Colour me shocked.
I don’t want you gone — stop being so dramatic, it’s really not good for your mental health to entertain persecution fantasies.
I, like many sane people who follow the *actual* science (and the staggering lack thereof in support of any “trans rights” claims) want:
1. No XY in XX spaces. TIFs can choose where they want to be: as females, they face higher levels of sexual assault than males, so XX spaces are a potential refuge to them. But no one is proposing to force Buck Angel out of XY spaces.
2. Leave the kids alone.
Do whatever you like as adults.
Present however makes you happy.
On your own dime.
But female persons, women & girls that is, have rights too. And since suffrage & the Civil Rights era, there has never existed a right for males to occupy female single-sex spaces, sports, or services.
And ALL children have a right to *evidence-based* healthcare, both physical & mental, as well as a secular education — neither randos online nor untrained educators are best positioned to provide guidance on these healthcare topics, and belief in a gendered essence is as firmly rooted in material reality as Catholics’ belief in transubstantiation.
And all of us gender heretics have the right to call a male a man.
And he’s still your friend with that creepy interest and he thinks it’s okay to talk about it and expect people to be alright with him finding listening to women pee as interesting or a turn on?! Haha choose your mates more wisely
I hate that the argument has given toilets and women’s shelters equal footing. I don’t give a rats ass which toilet anyone uses. But I DO feel very strongly about preserving single sex spaces in medical settings, shelters, and where women are processing trauma.
I’m not here to persuade you. I’m here to shame you.
If you had an ounce of intellectual integrity, or curiosity, or anything but male pattern hubris (like I often have), you’d consider the possibility that the conclusion you’ve reached is flawed.
Read the fucking philosopher’s post.
Engage with her instead of angry old me.
But seriously, open yourself up to the possibility that perhaps she might have considered the nuances even more deeply than you have, and might bring you some insights that you seem lacking from your male pov.
Get. Over. Yourself.
You’ll end up a better man as a result, and a better ally.
Steve, will you ever respond to my repeated question about how “mooting an issue” (which you admit is impossible anyway) can be read as anything but pontificating to women?
I’ve already responded to it several times. The fact that this doesn’t appear to satisfy you is of literally no concern to me I’m afraid.
I’ll wait patiently to have my “hypocritical ass handed to me” as punishment.
Speaking of which, weren’t you all supposed to be laughing at me by now? What happened?
Are you not as important as you thought? Or did you figure out that the only person who seemed to have trouble understanding the very simple hypothetical I presented is you?
I know you think you have, but what you did was handwave away criticism.
I’m taking my time, best served cold and all that. And, as you might be aware, fascism needs a beat down right now as well, so your weak-ass “brilliance” comes later.
It’s in your publication description, you bonehead.
Or are you saying the discussion is brilliant, but neither you nor your writing are?
Frank Lee’s presence seems to indicate otherwise, as does *your* inability to reflect based on a simple observation: when you are challenged, you get super defensive instead of, you know, engaging constructively.
"Or are you saying the discussion is brilliant, but neither you nor your writing are?"
Ah! There is a shred of reading comprehension!! Yes, I've never described myself as brilliant, I'm clearly describing some of the conversations as brilliant, just as I also variously describe them as baffling, and, as you're so ably demonstrating, bizarre.
Okay, as fun as this sad little game has been, I'm done now. You've made yourself look more than stupid enough without me continuing to point it out. I'm genuinely sorry for whatever has happened (or hasn't happened) in your life that makes you behave like this.
If you ever feel like doing the one worthwhile thing you've threatened to do and actually share that research, I'd appreciate the opportunity to learn something. Otherwise, have fun trying and failing to organise that humiliating pile-on you promised. Rest assured that I take you and your threats and insults very seriously.
Read the article and many of the responses. Impressed by the generally thoughtful and reasonable things people say. Because I have been unsure what to think on occasions I have been called a terf and roundly abused if I didn’t sound quite 'on message', whatever that happened to be. Thanks for this.
In the early 70s I was a contractor on an Airforce base. At that time female airmen were being assigned to clean both women's and men's WC. They didn't shut them down and a female airman was cleaning urinals while I was using one. I've stood next to a beautiful skirt raised Thai kathoey at urinals in the men's room in Bangkok. In Thailand and China there have been women cleaning the men's room with me in it. In Xi'an a big restroom access walked into the urinal area. Women turned left right away to go to the lady's women only throne room, men walked past them to the men's thrones. In none of those cases did I feel threatened or even uncomfortable.
That is very different from nude spaces like women's shower and changing rooms at a gym. If you have an exposed penis, you don't belong there because I have no doubt that that would be uncomfortable at the very least for women also in a state of nudity. The problem with transwomen is that women have no way of knowing if someone has true gender dysphoria and are not likely to be a threat or they are attention seekers or worse.
My advice to men who think they are women. If you think that, there are a few things that you need to understand. First of all is that you are still a man because you can't change your biological sex. It's okay to dress any way you wish and to adopt any superficial, stereotypical attributes of women that you desire. Live your life. No one should care, I certainly don't. However, because women are entitled to be treated fairly and to enjoy privacy from men there are certain things that are prohibited to you and me because we are men. You can't compete against women in most sports because it would be unfair. You can't go into women's private places like restrooms and locker rooms because that would make them feel unsafe. Finally, if you are a criminal you certainly can't be imprisoned with women.
Yeah that's where your fantasy about how we should handle this crashes and burns. Trans woven are assaulted by men at 4x the rate cis women are. People care, and they use violence to demonstrate that they do.
It's like saying 'no one should rape' and expecting women to pretend it doesn't happen anyways.
Glau: The way you deal with that is law enforcement just like any other assault not by forcing people to believe stupid shit like men can become women.
Glau: Now you are misquoting me. I said no one “should” care and I certainly don’t. I can’t speak for anyone but myself. Nor can you. If someone tells you that he is Napoleon are you required to agree with him? If you fail to endorse his delusions are you being Napoleonphobic? It it exactly the same situation if a man tells you that he is a woman. No one can change their biological sex. The mentally ill are entitled to freely live their lives with sympathy and care but not forced acceptance of their fantasies.
We lost a perfectly winnable election partly because voters saw progressives tied up in knots over this issue and wondered where common sense he gone. It’s a big deal for the tiny fraction of the population who have gender dysphoria but to the average working person it’s irrelevant.
I do agree women should not be described as bigots if they want female only spaces kept as they are. The fight for equality is only decades old and these gains are not in cement. The fact it was progressives who tried to dismantle them is shocking. If we want to build more unisex facilities- that’s great but sending trans women to a women’s shelter or prison is madness.
If I was to suggest as a white male how my black family and friends should feel safe and comfortable around that would be seen as insensitive and inappropriate
I feel your first sentence nails it! I have long wondered just how much damage this has done in certain areas, if you consider the number versus the noise. This in no way belittles the problems ANYONE has.
Great stuff Steve, really well done. Have you heard of “She’s Not Your Trauma/Therapy”?It’s essentially a framework for domestic violence work. The idea being that a man suffering from mental health issues cannot, and should not, use this as an excuse for being abusive towards his female intimate partner.
I absolutely agree with the idea. Unfortunately it gets tricky when confronting the ‘trans’ issue. The theory is part of a broader framework of ‘Intersectional Feminism’ (so I’m told), so if a man says he is a woman, then he should be treated as such.
The reason your article resonated with me is that during a recent conversation, I took the ‘side’ of JK Rowling stating that I believed people are attributing beliefs to her that she doesn’t have (she has said many times that she isn’t trans phobic). She simply believes (as I do) that ‘transgender’ men do not belong in women’s prisons/bathrooms/rape crises centres etc.
A rapist who says he is a woman just before sentencing should not be sent to a women’s prison. If there is any doubt about his gender, maybe seek the advice of his victims.
Anyway, the person I was discussing this with had a unique take, along the lines of the theories I mentioned earlier.
They believed that, as JK Rowling was herself a victim of domestic abuse, her current stance was simply Ms Rowling working through her own trauma as a victim by placing trans people “in danger”.
I've taken JKR's position in discussions. Well, I say "discussions" but generally it immediately results in vile insults and being told to "end" myself. It is unfortunate that in the main it's a subject which cannot be debated. Going fairly smoothly here though. 🤞
I have dared to wonder whether the proliferation of these very partisan discussions over social media in recent years, possibly in far greater proportion than the frequency of the circumstance itself, has not helped to create some of the great divide we find politically? Especially in areas of very conservative countries like America where the Culture Wars have been so damaging.
Have whatever opinion you will about bathrooms, sports, or trans youth, I am not here to debate any of those things. The anti- trans laws being proposed & passed in the States & the UK go well beyond it. There was proposed in Montana that would charge any trans person even if they have had full surgeries with indecent exposure in bathrooms, changing rooms, pools. How they can tell who had what parts originally I don't know. The people leading the charge on these laws do not care about women's safety. They are the same people endangering women's healthcare and advocating for ending no fault divorce. Making it harder for abused women to leave their husbands. Worrying about who comes into the bathroom is the least of my concerns as a woman. Both domestic violence and hate crimes against all kinds of minority groups have soared since the Grand Master of Protecting Women has been elected.
“The people leading the charge on these laws do not care about women's safety. They are the same people endangering women's healthcare and advocating for ending no fault divorce”
Yeah, I absolutely agree. As all too often happens, the reactionaries and extremists have taken a valid issue and used it as an excuse to attack a group they hate. The fact they could frame it as caring about women’s right (people like Matt Walsh spring to mind) was just a convenient excuse.
Others, and I’m seeing it more and more often, were formerly sane, nuanced adults who have been radicalised by the years of threats and gaslighting.
My advice to men who think they are women. If you think that, there are a few things that you need to understand. First of all is that you are still a man because you can't change your biological sex. It's okay to dress any way you wish and to adopt any superficial, stereotypical attributes of women that you desire. Live your life. No one should care, I certainly don't. However, because women are entitled to be treated fairly and to enjoy privacy from men there are certain things that are prohibited to you and me because we are men. You can't compete against women in most sports because it would be unfair. You can't go into women's private places like restrooms and locker rooms because that would make them feel unsafe. Finally, if you are a criminal you certainly can't be imprisoned with women.
That's it, just like me.
Exactly, trans women are welcome in men's private spaces and I would stand up for their right to be treated with civility and respect in those spaces. Their are many kinds of men and I have no problem with diverse presentation.
Boom! There it is, right there:
"And this trick, for the record, is one that every man who decided to ignore a woman saying 'no' has to pull."
and
"Because the entire reason women's spaces exist is to offer women privacy and protection from men who think like this."
Huge plus one. Really enjoyed this article.
This is the same thing that struck me as I read it. Thanks Matt.
There is real gender dysphoria and there is a fashion fetish. The problems is the inability or lack of interest to separate both and define them as separate.
Exactly this. This issue would never have reached this level of toxicity if some basic, common sense efforts were made to deal with the fetishists and the predators.
Sadly, after years of abuse and attacks, there are a lot of people who have lost all interest in differentiating. And I can’t blame them.
Trans activism has done immeasurable damage to the trans community and even the LGB community as a whole.
GD or not, males stay out.
Women and girls aren’t emotional support animals for deluded males.
It’s not who passes for a woman… it’s not that some restrooms have men and women in. In those particular restrooms the women understand the deal. The problem is men in women’s restrooms as a norm. Because if that is legalised across the board, then it’s an exponential problem… because some men will take advantage of those rules, as some men have done in women’s prisons, to the point of rape and impregnating a woman.
If I’m walking behind a woman at night, I make a point of crossing the road because I know there is a thought in her head, a thought that I wouldn’t have, if the situation was reversed and she was walking behind me.
Namely, that she might be at risk of harm.
Some people answer that with ‘well, we can all be at risk of harm at some point’ to which I say, imagine hearing a noise on the stairs as you’re trying to sleep…. It’s dark…. You get up cautiously and go look but as your hand reaches the handle of the door,
the door bursts open and a figure pushes you to the ground.
You’re told to be quiet.
He has a knife. Someone else is rifling through the drawers.
They leave. It could have been worse.
Now, go to bed the next night.
Tell me you’re gonna sleep like a baby.
Tonight, it just might be worse.
And on. And on.
You’ve entered the world of what might happen. And you’re on your guard in a way you weren’t the night before it happened.
That is a woman’s world.
Always.
This shit is ok when it’s over there, way over there… not in our jurisdiction…. But we always see a little bit more when we live it a little.
And for men not to get that,
where women are concerned,
Is kinda strange to me, and a touch sad.
Spot on, Mike, you've got it.
It’s okay Mike, Frank’s beleaguered wife agrees with him, supposedly.
Right, Frank?
well said Mike, thankyou
In real gender dysphoria that has included medical transition, it is unlikely that women would be able to tell the difference. Unless we are going to do XX vs XY tests and give everyone an armband to identify their gender, it is just a physical appearance issue.
No, MEN can't tell the difference. Women can tell the difference every single time. Recognising the difference between male and female is an evolutionary survival trait women have relied on for all of time. Even if there's a double take, that double take happens for a reason: because on the deepest level, women know when they are in the presence of a male, regardless the modifications.
LOL. Okay Karen. Thanks for womansplaining that to me.
You're welcome. Learn something.
He won't! He is a man who thinks he knows better than women do what women can see with our own eyes! That is mansplaining, of course.
Oh I love seeing a misandrist woman rush to womansplain to a man how he should think and act.
Bravo!
*golfclap*
Nothing wrong with womansplaining when a woman is telling you what women actually can do that, apparently, you cannot do and do not understand that women can do. You have made it clear that you do not think women can clock males who larp as females, but evolution has made women very able to do that.
Womansplaining is the process of failing to think critically through a rind of strong emotions, hence womansplaining is irrational and should be rejected and avoided.
That is really not true! If by "medical transition" you mean a man who has had his male genitalia removed, there is no way that at a quick glance a woman (or other man, for that matter) could tell that he no longer has male genitalia (no bulge in his crotch).
None of us realize it when a clothed man has had his genitalia removed due to trauma or disease. If by "medical transition" you mean a man whose breasts have somewhat enlarged due to estrogen he has taken, or has had breast implants,that he is not simply a man with gynecomastia. Some women joke when looking at a man with gynecomastia that "he has bigger boobs than I do!" Because some men do have bigger breasts than women with small breasts.
There are many ways in which men (males!) are anatomically different than women (females!). Relative to their overall body size, men have bigger hands and bigger feet than women is one of the most conspicuous differences. They have Adam's apples which the men who try to pass as women often try to conceal by wearing chokers. Their voices are usually much deeper in pitch. These days hulking 6'4" built-like-a-brick-shithouse men think that they can pass as women if they just wear high heels, long hair wigs and makeup. The males with the best chance of passing are those with small builds who are naturally "effeminate", but they rarely larp as women and so do not try to enter female single-sex spaces.
Evolution has made women very good at instantly knowing whether an adult is male or female. If it is not instantly apparent, it becomes apparent quite quickly, watching how a person behaves: their gait, how men sit with legs apart, the sense of entitlement that they project. Men who larp as women do not realize the many "tells" they have that make women realize they are in fact male.
Have you actually seen very many men who are trying to pass as women? Or is this just an intellectual exercise for you?
...their gait, how they sit with legs apart which girls and women are taught not to do. Men who want to pass as women coach each other on Reddit and elsewhere on the many ways they have to alter their behavior, learned as boys, in order to move and carry themselves more like women. There are many "tells" that males who larp as women do not realize they give that show women they are men and not women.
Wow. How sexist. So a butch female that wears pants and sits with her legs open and has adopted behaviors that project as male would be discriminated on by you as being male.
LOL. Women are magical in that they can tell the real sex of a person by just watching them walk, etc.
Wow, Frank, we're all sorry you have trouble distinguishing between the two sexes. You should get that checked. Even mice know the difference between men and women. https://www.kentscientific.com/blog/biological-sex-of-researchers-and-mice-can-skew-research-results/#:~:text=Mice%20can%20tell%20the%20sex,and%20more%20relaxed%20around%20women.
You're confused. You tried to assert what women think. You were corrected by a woman. Time to be quiet and learn.
Actually many men who don’t think with their dicks when looking at any slightly feminine form can tell the difference. This fully passing ‘thing’ is utter delusion . No male fully passes. How stupid to think otherwise !
Name calling is stupid.
Well, I'm a woman and I've known a few men who were very convincing as women. So convincing I didn't realize they were men until they told me. That was unusual even at the time, a long time ago, when what we then called transsexual men (vs. crossdressing men) for the most part wanted very much to pass as women, without a public fuss or any issues with restrooms. Since women's restrooms don't have urinals or open toilet stalls the only barrier to entry is one of appearance. Which is sort of ironic, as more masculine-appearing women routinely get challenged in public restrooms. As I well remember from my short-haired days.
Yeah well since there are numerous kinksters who are in there to record and to whack off, and since these people are also expressive of violence and threats of rape, and also just because public restrooms aren't their house and we don't have to share with strange men: they can stay the fuck out.
🙌🏼
It’s not just a physical appearance issue, Frank: “transitioned” males still retain much of their physical advantage, and male pattern violence.
Are armbands needed? Don’t be ridiculous.
Do you know who *always* knows? The male in question.
Why are *you* so eager to let them off the hook, to give them cover, to put women and girls are greater risk?
Your black and white position on this isn't going to win anything. I am sure you have been taking a dump at the airport bathroom with a biological XX person in the stall next to you, and you never noticed or could not tell. Likewise, I am sure females have been doing their business in a bathroom with other XY people and could not tell.
How are you suggesting we police that? What makes you think a real transitioned human like Bruce Jenner to Caitlyn Jenner is a threat to women in the bathroom. It seems overly paranoid, or just extreme.
You’re mighty casual with the risks to women, Frank.
What makes you think that Bruce Jenner isn’t? He’s admitted paraphilias involving *his own daughters*, they commonly cluster with others, often more dangerous.
Is it that he’s a hero to you? Deshawn Watson …
Is it that he seems nice? Ted Bundy …
It is *true* that some TIMs pass some of the time. And even that a few pass most of the time.
That doesn’t excuse your desire to extend a privilege to males in general (or at all).
Just as you ask how I’d “police” it, I ask you: are there going to be “passing police”?
How are women to know which TIMs have been certified as passing, or “safe”, and which haven’t?
The only answer is:
Hold all males accountable to the same rules. No XY in XX.
Enforce the laws we have, instead of excusing some subset of males that you (and if not you, who?) thinks women should be forced to accept in their private spaces.
And stop telling women what and who they should accept from males. Is that a clear enough response for you, Frank?
besides, passing in appearance doesn't make them "safe" it just means they didn't start with a super masculine frame. Not so common, given that boys are often identifiable in the cradle by their shape
It's clear what you believe, and I respect your right to believe it. I just disagree with that being a helpful or useful perspective. I see it as too black-vs-white given the realities of the human condition.
And you really don't answer the question about how your complete restriction on any XY entering a restroom for females gets policed.
Clearly the gestational process of gender development in the womb is fraught with diverse results that include gender dysphoria. In some cases there is genital ambiguity. But even without that, there can be other internal brain development that leads to sex identity dysphoria. And if those people transition, I don't see how restricting them from using a restroom matching their transitioned-to gender is a threat to anyone.
Frankly, I think what we need is construction code that makes all multi-person commercial restrooms unisex without urinals and with floor-to-ceiling lockable-from-the-inside stalls and no door into the restroom.
Frank, you’re every bit of a mansplaining tool as Steve.
Listen to some fucking women.
You don’t see how it’s a threat … because
you don’t know wtf you’re talking about.
And you would like to solve this with construction codes: have you read a damn thing about the research and realities of such spaces and how they put women and girls at greater risks than single sex facilities?
You’re quite the pair, and you caught me on an angry day.
I’m going to show a bunch of folks how callous and hubristic you are too.
Enjoy, Frank.
“ And you would like to solve this with construction codes: have you read a damn thing about the research and realities of such spaces and how they put women and girls at greater risks than single sex facilities?”
I’d actually be very interested in seeing this research if you could stop screeching and insulting for long enough to share it.
I listen to my wife of 42 years, and she agrees with me. Keep biological men out of women's restrooms, but not those with diagnosed gender dysphoria that have been medically transitioned. She agrees that the only way to police it is by the appearance of the person.
Like I said, I respect your opinion, I just don't agree with it. Frankly, because I am, it is a bit weird that anyone would fear the sex intentions of a biological male that is medically transitioned to a female identity.
You don't seem to understand the construction code point, but it might be over your head.
But your wife doesn't have the right to give consent for other women.
Let me try again: it is incorrect to treat DSD or any ambiguous genitalia patient as equivalent in any way to Gender Dysphoria. GD patients have zero physical abnormality or impairment. Whereas a baby with DSD may well have external genitalia that are completely opposite of their sex chromosomes (although this type is sooo extremely rare as to be insignificant). The most common type of DSD is 21-hydroxylase deficiency form of Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia. A boy with this is straight up just a boy. A girl with this IS masculinized to varying extents - and they still know they’re girls. GD is all in someone’s mind.
Honestly applied empathy and logic typically lead to the same conclusion as the stats I give elsewhere. Try this...
Imagine living as a woman: 1 in 4 have experienced rape, and 99% sexual aggression to a greater or lesser degree, all the while conscious of an extraordinary strength differential rendering us vulnerable to any one male who tries it on.
Men really seem to struggle to imagine this, so here's a useful analogy...:
You're given a large bag of Maltesers. The vast majority are lovely. But a few of them will make you ill enough to remember the experience for life (these represent abusive experiences stopping just short of attack; we've almost all had these, and many of us remember one when that realisation of our own utter vulnerability hit, and hit hard). Meanwhile, one Malteser in the bag - just one - is cyanide. That would be the violent attacker, whether he's downright evil or mundanely opportunistic. Do you take and eat a Malteser, Frank?
Mixed sex spaces remove women's freedom to mitigate - and get some relief from - the risk we face.
If you ever see this, Frank, perhaps in future try prioritising facts over a comically patronising tone. It would come across better.
Please also share the below with your wife, so she can make informed judgements, too...:
Comparisons of official MOJ statistics from March / April 2019 (most recent official count of transgender prisoners):
76 sex offenders out of 129 transwomen = 58.9%
125 sex offenders out of 3812 women in prison = 3.3%
13234 sex offenders out of 78781 men in prison =
16.8%
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/
NB. These proportions are reflected in corresponding statistics in various other nations.
You could also look into: research into levels of post-transition male violence and the variety of reasons for transitioning including AGP (on the latter, there are some very good firsthand accounts by medically transitioned transwomen eg. Debbie Hayton).
"And if those people transition, I don't see how restricting them from using a restroom matching their transitioned-to gender is a threat to anyone." I can see how, but only if the data shows it. Numerous studies have analyzed the prevalence of violent crime of transwomen and also of the overall male population. The data on crime and violent crime by transwomen has been tracked since at least 1973, studied within many countries, and then restudied. Data exists! Assuming you know the data exists and that you have examined it, are you suggesting that transwomen exhibit the same threat to women as other women do? Because that would have to be your conclusion from the data in order to make your statement. Have you examined the crime and violence data in regards to transwomen? It is possible to turn "I don't see" into an informed opinion, but 'seeing' might complicate your solidarity with trans-freedom.
Just how it was policed for the last 80 or so years since women were allowed to walk further than the shop because they were finally granted a public toilet for themselves only …
I agree, all bathrooms should be single person use only
‘Biological XY person’ ? You mean MALE
Men who are pretending to be women rarely pass as such. Women who pretend to be men, and who have taken enough testosterone, can generally pass more easily. The entire reason why the gender ideologues began experimenting on children is that they believe the males would "get better outcomes" if they don't go through normal male puberty. "Better outcomes" translates as "They would pass better as women." This isn't just my opinion, it is a fact that gender medical professionals are very open about.
Another reality that the gender ideologues are not open about is that men act like men after they have transitioned, they don't act like women. A lot of them are narcissistic and they don't change their entitled, self-centered, pushy personalities after they transition, no matter what body parts they hack off or how much estrogen they use.
You may think that trans identified females pass but as a gay man I can always tell the small manly robotic voiced women .. they have crap facial hair also.. no fooling me
There is no link between how 'true' someone's gender dysphoria is and how well they pass. And no woman knows what's going on in the head of the gender dysphoric man when he walks into the women's toilets. And the vast majority of 'trans women' today still have their male genitals intact.
Unless you are going to station a penis vs vagina inspection, you would likely prevent John Kerry's daughter from entering. https://unfoundation.org/blog/post/why-we-care-an-interview-with-vanessa-kerry-on-reproductive-health/
That's just not true
Nice one
women cannot tell the difference between a genuine transwoman (man) and a pervert, fetishist or chancer just by looking at them and for this reason, none of them should be able to come into our private spaces. They say they can't use the men's room because they fear being attacked but that's exactly how we women feel every time a male bodied person enters our spaces.
So awesome that you guys are finally reaching that conclusion. My other half still doesn’t get it. I too started out sanguine towards transppl in the wrong loo, but the complete failure to set any boundaries at all is worrying to me. I also agree with Frank that it cuts both ways: if single sex spaces are important for women then there must be at least some single sex spaces that are reserved for men as well.
The 'basic, common sense' efforts were to criminalize everyone who was even close. You never differentiated. The law never differentiated. Everyone was punished.
And now you want to act like you tried to meet us halfway? Lol
The problem is the never-ending entitlement of men to define women's boundaries for them.
You’re a moron
YES!
Well the situation is the same reversed. Any XX person that transitions medically to a male identity would be able to use the men's restroom.
I think the more recent never-ending general demonstrated entitlement is that women have no boundaries, refuse to have anyone else set any boundaries for them, but then also behave as Karens that can tell everyone else how they must live their lives.
The situation is not the same reversed you colossal buffoon.
Women, even on post pubertal T, do not gain the same physical advantage as males who go through puberty do.
JFC Frank.
“My wife agrees with me”
You’re probably such a nightmare when she doesn’t that she just strokes your ego.
Listen to JW
Read Kathleen Stock, Emma Hilton, and myriad others who’ve put in the work that you so breezily assume you’ve worked out all by your cognitively unimpressive lonesome.
Stop smelling your farts, Frank, you’re delusional from methane poisoning.
Alright man, that’s enough. Disagreement is welcome here, abuse is not.
Frank and others have tried several times to be reasonable and respectful. If you can’t express yourself more productively than screeching at people I’m going to ban you.
Calling women Karens is not respectful
No, it's not. And if one person had been writing dozens of unhinged comments calling everybody who disagreed with them, however slightly, a Karen, I'd have said the same thing to them.
But I've already overlooked dozens of "Digital Canary's" far more pointed insults. There comes a point where people simply aren't contributing anything but toxicity.
I am quite sure that Frank and other men who comment as he does are "man enough" to take humorous comments like "Stop smelling your farts...you're delusional from methane poisoning."
"I am quite sure that Frank..."
Me too. In fact Frank messaged me to let me know that he's fine with the occasional idiot with low emotional control.
But as these "humorous comments" contribute nothing to the conversation, are obviously not going to change anybody's mind, and create a degree of toxicity that I think we could all do without (and which some people might reasonably find unpleasant), I'd rather people who can't communicate like grown-ups throw their little tantrums in somebody else's community.
Have at it man.
Your hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness is already being picked up by bigger accounts, and I’ve not even started to go to work on you both.
Feel free to walk back your respective claims of superior understanding anytime, and listen to what’s been said.
Or dig deeper.
The choice is yours: I’d prefer you learn something the easy way, but I’m fully prepared to get it through to you the hard way.
Neither I, nor anybody else, can learn from someone who is “not here to persuade, but to “shame.”
All you’ve been doing here is indulging your ego. It’s painfully obvious that nothing you’re saying, and certainly not the way you’re saying it, will persuade or edify anybody. Nor is it meant to. It’s just you flattering yourself for an imagined audience.
Again, disagreement is welcome here, and if you feel you have something valuable to share (like that research on single use spaces), I’m sure many people would be glad to hear it.
But if all you want to do is grandstand and abuse people and make silly little threats about “the hard way” (believe me when I say you don’t even begin to intimidate me), then yes, you’ll have to do it elsewhere.
Still pontificating, Steve. You’re a laugh riot.
You know, you’re not the first person to say I’m funny. Glad you’re enjoying yourself.
I’m asking you for the third time for that research, I’d really like to learn. Otherwise, yeah, please share my work with larger accounts. Make sure thousands of new people see my work. What a terrifying threat that is for a content creator…😅
Been reading your comments lately, Steve?
Seems like folks here are enthralled by your brilliance.
FWIW i did come here to persuade.
And after you tripled down (unpersuadable🤷♂️) I switched to shaming.
So about your pontificating?
Any thoughts from your brilliant mind?
While I’m waiting for sagepub to stop being a pita, are you ever going to actually address your dismissal of your own pontification-related comment, Steve?
You and Steve need to take it outside. I agree with you substantively, Digital Canary. Read what I have written. But there is not point in you and Steve going at it like ping pong.
You sound like a nice person.
It's men's history-long 'redefining' of female boundaries with violence and force that is the point here. Go elsewhere for your bizarre little opportunistic wobble about 'Karens.' Jesus.
Whether a man has dysphoria or schizophrenia is irrelevant to women and girls needing their own single-sex spaces. Women and girls are not "support animals" for mentally ill males.
And there's the sexual fetish of autogynephilia, which most of these men who identify as women have.
It seems to me that this debate (and several of the other debates over gendered spaces) are all downstream of a major issue: that women feel like men (categorically) are a threat to them. THAT problem needs addressing. Unfortunately, it's also a thorny one. But a woman in the situation of "unknown person in fenced space" isn't doing gender studies; she's just had her IFF tripped, and this mysterious individual who apparently does NOT respect boundaries wants to talk gender politics?
And bringing in FtMs just complicates things further. How comfortable are cis women sharing a restroom with them?
I do think society is becoming more gender-neutral, which will help.
"women feel like men (categorically) are a threat to them. THAT problem needs addressing."
Yes, this is clearly the underlying issue, but I don't see it going away any time soon. Something like 98% of sexual violence is perpetrated by men. 92% of it against women. Never mind general creepiness and inappropriate, stalker-ish behaviour.
Women's spaces are an imperfect solution to this problem. But they are a solution. Once we get to a point where women don't have to fear men behaving inappropriately/violently, the question of women's spaces will be moot.
Good luck with that Steve.
We men are stronger, faster, and more violent: T is a hell of a molecule.
Perhaps you should refrain from pontificating about what women should or will accept, and listen instead to their voices.
"Perhaps you should refrain from pontificating about what women should or will accept, and listen instead to their voices."
Maybe you shouldn't be in such a hurry to jump on a high horse that you fail to notice I haven't pontificated about anything.
Do you recognize this, Steve?
“Once we get to a point where women don't have to fear men behaving inappropriately/violently, the question of women's spaces will be moot.”
Yeah, maybe it’ll be moot to *you*.
Likely not for any real world females who are actually familiar with the realities of male violence and living with the oppressive and omnipresent male gaze.
Seriously dude, get over yourself. And listen.
I’d be happy to point you toward many women who will take the time to make sure that you understand fully.
And in the meantime, please stop speaking for such women. You seem to have a good mind and the right motivation — don’t let yourself be part of the problem just because you’re too proud to admit a fault or failure.
"Yeah, maybe it’ll be moot to *you*."
Do you think the question of whether lesbians should share a changing room with straight women is moot? How about whether black women should share a bathroom with white women? Or maybe whether tall women should share spaces with short women?
To be clear, in the first two cases, there was spirited debate about these distinctions. But that debate is moot today. IF we one day arrive at a point where men pose no threat to women, the question will be equally moot. Note the IF.
I state clearly that we're a long way from that point. I personally don't believe we'll ever reach it. But recognising that if men no longer pose a threat to women, conversations about mitigating the threat men pose to women are moot, is not "pontificating." It is extremely rudimentary logic.
Also, I'm not attempting to speak for "women" because "women" are not a monolith who all think the same thing. I could just as easily point you to many women who welcome the abolition of sex segregation and think any man who declares himself a woman should immediately be granted unlimited access to women's spaces.
I disagree with those women.
So I've thought very carefully, spent a great deal of time listening to a variety of perspectives, and have come to my own conclusions.
That's what caring about an issue requires you to do.
Yeah, you’re a huge brained intellectual, Steve.
You got one thing right above: “extremely rudimentary logic”
JFC you’re an ass.
But don’t listen to me. I’m just a random dude on your socials.
Maybe read what Doc Stock @kathleenstock — a professional philosopher — has to say about your pipe dream …
https://open.substack.com/pub/kathleenstock/p/lets-abolish-the-dream-of-gender?r=4hy79y&utm_medium=ios
If you want to be an ally of women, you need to get over yourself. If you simply want to be seen by some as an ally, so you can get social approval, while still damaging the cause you purport to support, keep doing what you’re doing.
Fucking moron.
"Maybe read what Doc Stock @kathleenstock — a professional philosopher — has to say about your pipe dream"
😅 Jesus. What is wrong with you?! It's not "my pipe dream." I'm saying now for the third time I don't think it'll happen. But yes, obviously a world where women aren't endangered by men would be a good thing. Aspiring to this point, even if it's never going to be fully realised, is obviously worthwhile. We've already taken significant strides in this direction in the past 50 years, say.
But yes, until that glorious day, I'm advocating unequivocally for the maintenance of female-only spaces. You're in the comments of an article I've written stating exactly that. So what's got you in quite such a state I'm not sure.
Anyway man, it appears to be futile trying to talk to you. Enjoy virtue signalling for your imagined audience, I guess. I'm sure all your posturing and insulting random people will be invaluable in the fight for women's equality.
I totally love Kathleen Stock!
Still not willing to reflect.
Steve, you’re not “brilliant”, you’re just a defensive man who has a way with words sometimes.
Once for for the hard of self-reflecting: you are the one who wrote that “once we get to a point where women don’t have to fear men behaving inappropriately/violently, the questions of women’s spaces will be moot.”
And you are the one who had doubled, tripled, quadrupled down on being in the right.
You’re not.
So now I go loud … and we all get to mock you.
I feel like some people just invoke ‘women’ to lecture and speak down to other people. Like you’re a obnoxious scold
Nobody is mocking the author. Everybody is thinking you're an angry lunatic.
Run along now.
Troll troll go away, come again another day! (as if your sort even need encouragement) 😘
As a woman, please stop speaking for us like you’re a spokesperson. Speak for YOURSELF. Why do people think they get to speak for an entire sex class lol?
I was about to spring to your defence Steve and say I didn’t notice any pontificating either and thought it was a brilliant article . Cheeky title though:D I thought you were on the other side for a moment. Actually just two days ago, I was coming out of a cubicle and noticed a man at the basins and he immediately said I’m so sorry. Is it okay if I just wash my hands quickly? The gents are away on the other side of the building“(which was true) it was no issue at all
As a woman I don’t want my feelings to be what controls things lol. I think it’s funny that women feel entitled to this
Just out of curiosity, what are the stats on trans women’s violence against women? I’ve been at the receiving end of male sexual violence multiple times. Weirdly enough none of them wore dresses.
Yes, I’m sure this is almost all women’s experience as men outnumber trans women by several orders of magnitude.
But according to the available data, trans women, per capita, are more likely to commit sexual offences than men.
https://fairplayforwomen.com/transgender-male-criminality-sex-offences/
So, I doubt that very much/ other sources are giving me different info. But let’s accept it. Let’s say it’s 100% correct. The current situation is still not only not protecting women in women’s bathrooms - it’s actually endangering us far more.
Let me lay it out and you tell me what you think.
So our premise is - trans women are still somehow ‘men on the inside’, therefore dangerous to cis women. But we agree they are a very small part of the population. So if you asked an average woman would she be more comfortable in the same bathroom with a trans woman or with a cis man, can we agree it would probably be the cis man that causes more stress? As, in line with our previous exchange, most of us who have had harrowing experiences have had them with regular men, not trans women.
And here you will say ‘well of course!! All men should DEFINITELY stay out of women’s spaces, that’s the whole point of my article, didn’t you read it?
And I did. Except the issue we come to now is that trans men also exist. And I don’t know if you’re following that side of things - I feel like trans men are forever in the shadows somehow, no one ever brings them up in debates - but with how hormone therapy and such has developed, trans men look 100% like men. I’m talking beard, pecs, hurly burly man looks.
And those 100% male presenting people are now SUPPOSED to be in my bathroom. Because they were born female, right? And so far so good, I have nothing against either group of trans people in my bathroom.
But I wonder if you are seeing my issue already? If previously we said ‘well, any man can PRETEND to be a woman in order to gain access to women’s spaces’ - what we have done now is literally assured that they don’t even have to pretend. Any random dude without even combing his hair can now rock up to the women’s room and say ‘oh yeah I know I look like this, but I was born with a vagina.’
And, like….. am I gonna check?? Are you gonna check? Are we installing genital screening in bathrooms and are any of us comfortable undergoing that?? So effectively, this change literally throws the doors of women’s bathrooms open to any single man casual enough to say ‘oh yeah I was born female’.
Do you genuinely think that’s better and safer for us? Before at least they had to take hormones and pick out a dress.
"So if you asked an average woman would she be more comfortable in the same bathroom with a trans woman or with a cis man, can we agree it would probably be the cis man that causes more stress?"
No, this doesn't follow at all. Yes, trans women are a smaller percentage of the population than men. But if you're alone in a bathroom with one or the other, then your odds of being alone in the bathroom with one of them are 100%. Does that make sense? So their relative percentages in the population become irrelevant.
And let's also think about this:
"trans women are still somehow ‘men on the inside’,"
You say this as if it's some kind of controversial position, but what else could a trans woman possibly be? A trans woman is a man who wishes to be perceived as a woman. It is impossible to be a trans woman unless you're a man.
Trans activism has attempted to force-redefine the word "man" to mean...well, I'm not even sure! The collection of stereotypes associated with male behaviour? Anybody who identifies as a man (ignoring the circularity of this definition). I'd be very interested to hear how you're defining the word man here.
And more to the point, I've yet to hear *anybody* (and I've ben asking for at least five years now) explain in any kind of verifiable or objective way, what the difference between a trans woman and a man even is!
Until there is a genuine willingness to acknowledge the physical realities of trans women, until you can define "trans woman" or "woman" in such a way that you can unambiguously say that I, for example, am not one, you absolutely can't blame people for treating all trans women as "men."
As for the trans men issue, I've already written about it here. Funnily enough, I made the exact same point you did: trans men are often ignored in this debate and shouldn't be. But mainly because when you consider trans men the issues become even clearer.
https://commentary.steveqj.com/p/trans-men-the-great-clarifiers-of?utm_source=publication-search
There are two things to consider here.
First, the issue of "passing." Trans men who don't pass use the women's bathrooms. Why? We all know why. In the above-linked article, I even mention the story of an all-trans-men football team who went to great lengths to ensure that they would be able to have an entire changing room to themselves so they didn't have to get changed with men. Why? Again we all know why.
If a trans woman passes, they almost certainly already use the women's bathroom without causing any issues. But it's far, far harder for a trans woman to pass than it is for a trans man.
And the second, far more important issue is that men and women are different. I might be a little weirded-out if a woman were in the men's bathroom, but I wouldn't be afraid. I wouldn't worry that she was going to rape me or even seriously suspect that she'd behave inappropriately. So I have no issue with the men's bathroom being the "all genders" bathroom where trans women and trans men and men can all use the bathroom, and having a female-only bathroom for women.
You're right, trans women are a tiny percentage of the population. And so my position is that their desire to use women's spaces shouldn't override the desires of a far, far larger percentage of the population who would prefer to retain spaces that exist for people of their sex.
👏👏👏 i’m going to be late. I have to get off this very interesting comment section!
Come back when you have time 😊
First off, thank you for taking the time to craft a thoughtful reply, I genuinely appreciate it. It's such a rare trait these days, on any side of any debate.
That said, I feel like some of your own points want to ask some of your other points some questions.
"But if you're alone in a bathroom with one or the other, then your odds of being alone in the bathroom with one of them are 100%" this does make sense by itself. But I don't think it disproves my point. Having an actual cis man in the bathroom would make most women more nervous. This is important because it ties to my second point, which I think you misunderstood.
So you have mentioned above how 'trans women have male pattern criminality', and yet you also say this - "If a trans woman passes, they almost certainly already use the women's bathroom without causing any issues." Which, for the record, I totally agree with. I am sure many of us have been in bathrooms next to trans women and have not noticed. So..... what gives? Should we be retroactively horrified? Where was the criminality? If men and women are so deeply different and we simply cannot allow a trans woman to use a 'women's space' - what of all those women who pass and do so, as you yourself point out, 'with no issue'? Doesn't that pretty clearly show it's fine if they are there?
'Ah yes,' you might say, 'but it is the OTHER kind of trans women who are the issue, the kind with the male pattern criminality!' And here we get into the issue of now being 'kinds' of trans women? Delineated by... how well they pass? Why would that be, if a 'man cannot change his essence' - how are these very unique trans women managing to pee next to me in peace? Would a trans woman passing less well be a trans woman who poses more danger to me? ....why??
Then we come to your point of 'oh, trans men don't want to be in locker rooms with cis men'. Why do you think that is? Because they don't feel they belong there, or because they feel those cis men might be hostile to them? What point does that possibly prove other than 'nobody wants to share enclosed spaces with cis men, because they tend to be the most molesty group of people out there'? I can easily imagine a group of gay men also not wanting to share a locker room with cis men, but I would not think that makes gay men 'not really men'.
Thennnn we come to your point of 'oh I don't mind a trans man in MY bathroom, the same way I don't mind a woman in my bathroom, because they do not intimidate me'. I agree. That makes sense. But my point was not about trans men in MENS rooms. My point was about trans men in WOMEN's rooms.
Because the plan of everyone using bathrooms according to birth-genitals means the hurliest burliest beardiest swolest trans man - and there are some pretty impressive specimens out there - gets to be in MY bathroom. Do you see what that does? A guy with a neck beard and arms the thickness of my thigh can come into MY bathroom. And if I go 'Sir this is the ladies' room', he can go 'oh you see I was born with a vagina.'
He can just say that. Do I know if he was really born a woman? Who is going to be checking? Do you get it? If everyone born female can go into a women's restroom, that means that ANY MAN AT ALL can go into ANY WOMAN'S RESTROOM, just as he is, and simply say 'oh I was born with a vagina. This is all from T shots'. You, you personally, could go into a women's bathroom, look the woman there in the eye and say 'yeah, I know it looks weird, but I was actually born a woman', and there you are, a CIS man, in the women's bathroom. Do you get why that is worse than what we had before?
"And more to the point, I've yet to hear *anybody* (and I've ben asking for at least five years now) explain in any kind of verifiable or objective way, what the difference between a trans woman and a man even is!" So on these questions I do agree it is difficult to define things in 'verifiable and objective ways'. It is. Because human beings are really complex and weird. I can try to do so in a roundabout way.
It is my personal belief, from everything I have seen, read and heard on the subject, that male/female is not so much a dichotomy as a spectrum. And yes, 98% of the people will fall relatively clearly on one of the two 'sides'. But that doesn't make it not a spectrum, because you have so many people who clearly don't fit either box neatly. Start just with the recent surge in massive bulky 'muscle mommy' type women in sports (think Ilona Maher for example, or Natasha Aughey, or Alicia Napoleon. Of course these women are women. But we can definitely see that Ilona Maher is, let's say, a different type of woman than, say, Ariana Grande. Women can have different amounts of muscle mass, testosterone, ambition, aggression, whatever. So can men.
Then you come to the cases where the body is clearly confused. You have people born with both sets of genitals. Before, doctors used to just let the parents choose which set to remove, and would raise the child in whatever gender the parents had picked. If that kid grew up to feel differently gendered, would we be surprised? Then we have weird mixes - male chromosomes with female genitals. Female genitals outside but undescended testes inside the body. Is it weird if these people grow up to not feel entirely the gender they are being raised as? Not really. They are the middle ground. Somewhere in between.
My belief is that genitals alone do not make a man. If you god forbid lost yours, you would not stop being a man. If someone had surgically removed them from you at birth, you would also not stop being a man. We all have our spot on the spectrum, that has to do with our body but also our hormones, our brain chemistry, our life experiences.
Some of the differences between the sexes ARE biological - but biology is not fond of strict binaries. We see that in our vast differences. We have very effeminate women, to kind of medium-feminine women, to clearly pretty darn butch women, to very androgynous people, to fairly effeminate men, to regular degree sort of masculine men to extremely hyper masculine men, it's much more than just 'box a and box b'.
Then of course we come to the fact that one thing that happens very often when we start introducing these firm rules about 'women's spaces' is that masculine seeming women - muscular, sporty, short haired type women - tend to start getting harassed about being 'in the wrong bathroom' and suspected of being trans. How would we protect them from this? Do they need to wear transparent pants? Do they not get the same consideration other women get, because they're 'performing their gender wrong'? Because I have heard zero personal experiences from my circle of friends saying a trans woman assaulted them in a bathroom, but I have heard stories from women friends who have been questioned over their gender in a women's bathroom. Even had security called on them. For not 'looking sufficiently feminine'.
I'm pretty sure you at least heard of the case of Imane Khelif, the women's boxing gold medalist at the last Olympics. There was a literal witch hunt after her because she 'looked too manly' to random people. Trying to police allowed levels of 'manliness' in women is not something I will ever be able to get behind, nor would I ever consider it 'protecting women'.
Anyway, very long story short, I personally would be fine with 100% unisex bathrooms, have worked in spaces that had unisex bathrooms, and have had no issues using them. But I am very much against random citizens gatekeeping other random citizens from spaces they feel 'belong to them more', on what are clearly pretty shaky pretenses.
😅 This reply is longer than the original article, so I don't think I'm going to get to every point/question. But I think most of the confusion is just about being pragmatic.
Yes, trans women maintain "male pattern criminality," because they're males. I'm still not sure what magical alchemy you believe happens that breaks trans women free from male patterns of thought and behaviour the moment they utter the magic words, "I identify as a woman."
But as a male, I can confidently report than not all males are rapists. I know that if I used a female bathroom the women in here would have nothing to worry about. I believe the same is true of a lot of men.
So while, in a simple, black and white world, trans women who pass would still all stay out of women's spaces that's simply not realistic.
As you and many others point out, there's no way to police that if a trans woman passes except for genital inspections. And trans women who pass have, at least, demonstrated sufficient commitment over a number of years, that we can be fairly confident they're not just using gender ideology as an excuse to perv at women. In fact, most trans women in this category are gay males. And if they pass, their appearance won't provoke the same reaction than mine did.
But you still haven't explained how trans women who DON'T pass are in any way distinguishable from men. If I say I identify as a woman now, do you unquestioningly believe me? Should I be allowed to use women's spaces with no questions asked? Would you consider any woman who wasn't comfortable with my presence a bigot? Should my desire to use a women's space trump the comfort of the women in them? These are the question you're not addressing.
As for trans MEN in women's spaces, yes, obviously they shouldn't be in there because they WILL provoke the same reaction that I did. But there's a false equivalence here, because you're overlooking the differing functions of women's and men's spaces.
Women's spaces exist to offer women privacy and protection from men. Men's spaces exist to give men a place to go while women enjoy that privacy and protection.
Men's spaces don't become less safe for men if you introduce men in dresses or women with stubble. That's why I think that ideally, men's spaces should be used as an "all gender space" and women's spaces should be for females. Because women's spaces DO become less safe for women (and therefore fail to serve their function) if men can simply opt their way in with a declaration.
I'm not going to get into the male/female spectrum argument except to say that even if we pretend that intersex people break the sex binary (they don't) they have nothing to do with trans people.
Imane Khelif is male. And therefore has physical advantages that should be disqualifying for female sport. Especially combat sport. It is so frustrating and sad that this simple fact has been reframed as "hate."
Never, in the history of sport, has your sporting category been defined by how you "feel" on the inside. Your sex is, in 99.98% of cases, a simple objective, verifiable-at-a-glance fact. And in those 0.02% of cases, like Khelif, it's still trivially verifiable. It just takes more than a glance.
(p.s. I'm not pulling 0.02% out of my ass, that's the actual percentage of people who are intersex - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12476264/).
On that note, Ilona Maher is not somewhere on a "spectrum" between male and female. She's female. And I'm sure she'd find it very offensive that you'd suggest otherwise. It's incredibly regressive to look at a tall or muscular woman and discount or diminish her womanhood because of that. Just as it's regressive to look at a boy who likes dolls or dresses or the colour pink and say he's a girl. I thought we'd left thinking like that behind in the 50s.
It seems that everybody who makes this kind argument confuses femininity with womanhood. But femininity is an optional performance that both men and women are free to embrace or reject. I think we'd agree that our society needs to go further to make feminine males and masculine females genuinely accepted in society.
But womanhood, as in the state of being an adult female human being, is not a performance. And isn't delegitimised by being strong or tall or capable. Only by being male.
Effeminate males are still men. Weak males are still men. Gay males are still men. Males with breast implants are still men. As you yourself say, males who lose their penises are still men. So I'm still not clear at what point you think they become women.
Lastly, it's great that you're "100% fine with unisex bathrooms." But your boundaries don't and shouldn't set the bar for all women, right?
So the question is, as I've asked elsewhere, is it reasonable that many women DO want that privacy in a changing room or a hospital or a rape crisis centre?
Is it reasonable for a woman with a disabled, non-verbal child to want to ensure that her child only receives intimate care from another woman? Or for a woman who needs life-saving surgery to request that only women provide intimate care for her without having her surgery cancelled out of spite?
Is it reasonable for a woman who has been raped by a man to refuse to refer to her rapist as "she" in court? Is it reasonable for her to want to recover in a space where she knows she won't encounter men?
I think it absolutely is. And I think they should be able to get it without being demonised or threatened. Don't you?
Ok things are getting good! First off yes, I do apologize for the length- but I really feel this is what it takes to truly discuss these issues, which are full of complexity and nuance. To truly understand the other person’s opinion and to truly investigate our own. One should not be taking up a stance unless one is ready to defend it vigorously- and rigorously.
I massively agree with the pragmatism issue. I think we have to be pragmatic when dealing with these things. But I think the solution you are championing is the least pragmatic of all. It purports to want to get all trans women - even the passing ones who ‘have shown commitment’ and admittedly cause no trouble- out of ‘women’s spaces’, but allows CIS men INTO those spaces, either as security guards hunting down ‘masculine loking persons’ (who more often than not turn out to be just masc presenting women), or as regular brazen cis MEN, who can now claim ‘oh no I have a vagina trust me bro’. When letting everyone go where they more or less look like they belong avoids more unpleasant situations. Not all, because the world is not perfect, but more.
And I get your perspective where you want a special split that is objectively not being discussed in society right now - where everyone except 100% feminine presenting cis women is in men’s bathrooms - saying ‘oh it won’t bother the men’. But I, as you, am not concerned about the men being bothered. I am concerned about all those OTHER people being bothered. I firmly believe anyone who is not a cis man is 98% more likely to seek to use a women’s bathroom specifically to avoid sharing the space with cis men, and not ‘to perv on women’. We have stalls anyway.
This way you create some mystical category of ‘the real true woman’, who is the only one who deserves any social protection or consideration, while everyone else, be it men, trans women, trans men, and to me most crucially just regular-ass women who tent to look a little more masculine- all get to bear the brunt of that ‘special protection’ by being perpetually harassed while trying to pee.
On the subject of Ilona, if you re-read what I wrote, you will see I also said she is clearly a woman. Obviously. And obviously I also feel masculine looking women are just as much women as feminine presenting women. But masculine presenting women are probably the largest victim group of the system you are proposing. Ilona is ok because she is famous. But imagine a non famous woman, built like her with a jawline like hers, walking into a ‘gender-policed’ bathroom.
What do you think happens? You think she is treated with dignity and respect or does she get the security guys called on her? How does she feel when the security guys get there? Is she asked to ‘prove’ her gender? How does she prove it??? This harassment is already happening, and I am pretty confident it largely outnumbers the number of actual assaults by trans women on cis women in women’s bathrooms.
Do we just say that is ‘pragmatically how it has to be’? Or do we reconsider?
Or do we value the safety of masculine looking women LESS than the safety of feminine looking women? If yes, why?
So, you mention that you consider ‘passing trans women to be gay males’. Does that mean you believe gay people DON’T have ‘male pattern criminality’? Why would this be?
‘If I say I identify as a woman now, do you unquestioningly believe me? Should I be allowed to use women's spaces with no questions asked?’ - see, this is really the point. You can do that IN BOTH SCENARIOS. In the ‘only cis females in women’s bathrooms’ scenario you can claim you are a transitioned born female. In the current context you can say ‘you feel female’. In either case CIS MEN CAN STILL LIE to gain access to women’s spaces. The protection does NOT meaningfully increase. But honestly, yes, I believe you more if you are going to the trouble of taking hormone injections and picking out a nice dress. No man who has ever menaced me would have bothered to do that.
I mean the whole idea, knowing how difficult it actually is to gain access to hormone therapy etc, that men would be going through all that just to attack women, when the men who want to attack women CLEARLY HAVE ZERO ISSUES already doing that, is very far fetched. Especially since we know that over 70% rapists never see a day of jail time. Like if I wanted to champion protection of women, I would start there. I feel like the impact might be immeasurably larger.
To your last point, I absolutely agree nobody should be threatened or harassed or denied medical care. Doctors should care for everyone equally and they do every day - Black doctors and nurses treat openly racist people, women doctors treat openly misogynistic men, all doctors treat people even if they happen to have swastika tattoos. The cases you are speaking about sound extremely specific to me, so I will go out on a limb to say they are not a massive problem. What percentage of gynecologists are men? In my experience a fair number. Somehow we’re not up in arms over that. Should we have our pick of doctors? If it is feasible. But I have never picked a surgeon either for myself or my kid. That’s not how hospitals tend to work. Could there be exceptions for especially traumatized people? I am not against it. But seeing how hard it is to get any sort of medical care these days, again, that’s far from our biggest issue.
Do you think more women were ‘in danger of a trans doctor performing an intimate surgery’ on them or were more trans people in danger of being refused treatment because people don’t accept them as ‘real’?
Basically I think we agree on a large portion of the topic. The main difference between our stances is that I am less comfortable with sacrificing a series of minorities for the comfort of one specific group we somehow deem special and particularly vulnerable. Trans people are at a MARKEDLY HIGHER RISK of EXPERIENCING sexual assault and not committing it. Yet we should shove them all in bathrooms with men, who commit the majority of that assault?
Doesn’t sound like fair and equal treatment to me.
"But I think the solution you are championing is the least pragmatic of all. It purports to want to get all trans women - even the passing ones who ‘have shown commitment’ and admittedly cause no trouble- out of ‘women’s spaces’, but allows CIS men INTO those spaces, either as security guards hunting down ‘masculine loking persons’ "
Haha, no, this obviously isn't what I'm suggesting. I think very few people, other than the absolutely most extreme weirdos, want anything like this.
I 'm suggesting an honest recognition that a trans woman is, in fact a man. Because from there, we can have an honest conversation about under which circumstances, if any, a man should be allowed into a woman's space.
You, at least, are honest enough to admit that what you're advocating for is unisex spaces, aka, the abolition of sex segregation. I think this is a terrible idea, but at least it allows us to talk about why we have sex segregation and all the situations in which sex matters more than this meaningless concept of gender.
There are lots of times when I'd rather not use men's spaces. Men's toilets are often super gross, some men are really weird in men's changing rooms, if, heaven forbid, I were ever sent to prison, I'd be terrified to be held in the men's wing and would much rather be in the women's. Male violence is a scary thing. And I say that as a larger and stronger than average man.
But while the problem of male violence absolutely needs to be solved, I don't understand why you think it's women's responsibility to put themselves in greater danger to solve it. You talk about "sacrificing minorities" for the comfort of one specific group, but women are also a marginalised group, and you're talking about sacrificing that very significant group for the comfort of a minority group that you can't even define in a coherent way!
Again, once we can distinguish trans women unambiguously from men, I think we could have this conversation much more easily. But until then, trans women aren't even a minority! Because you're advocating for all men to be treated in exactly the same way.
The percentage of men who would rather not go to a men's prison, say, is roughly 100%. So in your view, why shouldn't they also be able to claim refuge in women's prisons? What's the difference? Seriously, this whole conversation is a waste of time until you address this question: what is the difference between a man and a trans woman? How can we ever tell the difference?
As for Ilona, you say she's clearly a woman (although you also say that she "clearly [doesn't] fit either [male or female] box neatly"), but WHY is she clearly a woman? If, as you claim, male and female are two ends of a spectrum, why do you cite her as an example of someone who is further from the female end of the spectrum than Kim kardashian, say? If someone like Dylan Mulvaney is also a woman, WHAT DOES THE WORD "WOMAN" MEAN???!!!
I'm sure Ilona walks into women's restrooms all the time. She looks like a woman. A big woman, yes, but a woman. Masculine looking women Do, and always have faced more scrutiny in women's spaces. I've heard several stories about that, and usually they're resolved the moment she opens her mouth or the other person gets a clear look at them. Despite the common attempts to obfuscate this fact, human beings are very, very well adapted to distinguish between men and women.
But this is still largely beside the point. Some men are small and slight enough to be able to put on a dress and walk into a woman's bathroom. If they grew out their hair and had a shave, maybe they wouldn't even attract much attention. BUT I STILL DON'T THINK THEY SHOULD DO THIS. Because they're men.
Yes, men can walk into women's bathrooms. I could easily have pushed past that woman and had a pee in one of the stalls if I'd really wanted to. But doing so would have a deliberate violation of women's boundaries. This is not a benign or innocent act. You seem to be totally overlooking this fact. Again, the reason there are all these people asking how to find the "courage" to use women's spaces is because they know they're not supposed to be using them.
I'm happy to admit that genuine trans women (I'll use transsexual for clarity) complicate this dynamic. If someone with diagnosed gender dysphoria, who has undergone treatment and transition, uses the women's bathroom, I struggle to see an issue with that. I know many women in the comments here would disagree, but as we've agreed, chances are they've already shared a bathroom with someone like this.
The issue is this new and insane idea that any man, simply by saying he identifies as a woman, should be treated in the same way. The only way to accommodate this particular brand of insanity is, as you say, to do away with sex segregation altogether. And this would trample over the wishes and boundaries of well over 50% of the population (lots of men would object too) to satisfy the desires of a few people who are confused about the distinction between sex and gendered stereotypes.
Lastly, on male gynaecologists, yes, male gynaecologists exist, but they're largely a hangover from the days when women simply couldn't be doctors. Now that's changed, the majority are women, and I'm pretty sure the trend will grow.
Also, it's fairly routine for women to ask to be seen by a female gynaecologist. And the bigger issue here is that they get to choose. Women in your sex desegregated future, wouldn't get to choose who shared their spaces. Even now, lesbian bars and apps are being shut down if they even attempt to be woman only. Women are being slandered as bigots and having their gym/spa memberships revoked if they object to unambiguous men using their spaces. Men who could easily use the male spaces without any issue.
I always get the impression when I talk to your side of this debate that you're only ever thinking of some dainty, 5'5" twink who would never hurt a fly. And sure, these people absolutely exist. But can you also recognise that the majority of males are not like this. And that there are several counter examples that need more serious consideration than, "just let them do what they want and we'll take action once they rape someone!"?
You talk utter crap !!
I'd point out that in that violence, trans women are assaulted by me at 4x the rate cis women are.
Women only spaces will always be needed to assist women to lead full lives in the public sphere. At work, school/ university, in public shopping centres. Women need to be in these places and need to be able to attend void, defecate, change menstrual products without males present. Pregnant women, women with any kind of disability, mothers with small children - all need the safety of women only facilities even more. Men, even ones who dress like women, in women's spaces will drive the most vulnerable women out of public life. This is deeply unjust. And the women who blithely agree that men who think they are meant to be women are fine in women's facilities - are not thinking of the cancer patient who is struggling with a new stoma. Or the women who have been abused before. Or whose religion forbids them being near unknown men. Women are a diverse group. And many have every reason to be fearful of strange men. And any man who feels he 'should' use the women's toilets as a matter of principle is strange indeed.
Have you considered that male violence is inevitable, and is something to be managed, not eliminated? I think men should be steered away from violence & given healthy outlets, but I also think women can be encouraged to actively probe men, try to figure who’s manipulative & violent. Current internet feminism doesn’t want to acknowledge that women can & should play an active role in managing male violence, they say “it’s not our problem.” But men & women are interdependent, so I think it’s everyone’s problem.
I think it would be fair to state that women's advocacy has played an enormous role in managing or mitigating the impact men's violence from the early development of women's shelters, to raising awareness, to working towards a justice system that is beginning to take it seriously and so on and so on. I think feminism has been very active in this way. But solving the root problem of male violence towards women and children is not a something that women should be asked to do and I think asking women to actively probe men to find out if they are violent is a bit like suggesting a game of Russian roulette.
Actively probing people is a life skill. It's only like playing Russian roulette if you're bad at it. If a man is violent to a woman that's a terrible thing, but you talk about "solving the root problem of male violence." I think that problem can be mitigated, but not solved. The feminist strategy has been to put all the responsibility on men, and that has worked to some extent, but I think it's having severe diminishing returns.
When people suggest, as I did, that women be active and probe, feminists generally reject it, as you did, and say it's unreasonable, or victim-blaming. But do you really think women shouldn't probe and be active? To me that's just part of being an adult, and feminism should encourage women to be active, to probe and investigate, as they explore the world.
Women 'feel' like men are a threat to them? Dear God. Read the Dominic Pelicot case as a starting point. Read stats on voyeurism in women's toilets, the images uploaded to the net, as a growing category of porn. Don't top there. Men ARE a threat to women. Not all men but god knows enough that no woman gets to feel safe.
The vast majority of men are honorable, but there’s no way to read intentions at first glance. The old line about “all men are rapists” is dead wrong, but given the size differential, women just have to be careful, unfortunately.
Most men wouldn't rape. But any man could. Except 'trans men'.
So you mean women then!
No such thing as CIS , vile term
...and I suppose, having rejected the cis/trans diffentiator, you are going to turn around and say that trans people don't believe there are biological differences?
It’s not a differentiator it’s reality vs feelings
Is this what you feel? Because it certainly isn't reality.
Reality is reality. You are delusional.
Well actually many (not all) think they are the opposite sex just cos they have taken a few hormones and inverted their dangly bits
Weird how you are calling out the prior who actual have surgically changed their sex here.
And lol at your dismissal of hormones. Try taking a "few hormones". See what it does to you.
Wrong sex hormones make you ill, try asking all the de transioners about their stories. Or the vaginal atrophy , serious arthritis , cancer etc that it causes you stupid fool
And yet, they are used all the time for menopause and trans people do far better with them than without.
Sounds like puberty blockers, which work just fine for cis kids with precocious puberty but have all sorts of life-wrecking consequences when used by trans kids.
/S
No such thing as cis you muppet . I repeat for the obvious hard of hearing . No man can ever become a woman. Your sex can never change. Now stfu
People have been changing sex since 1956. Rejecting that because it doesn't fit into your worldview is a bit ironic, given that you insist we are the ones to reject reality.
You are the sex you were born. Live in delusion all you like that is your perogative, but it doesn’t change the truth
Don’t fool yourself glen/glenda. You can’t change sex and no amount of surgery changes that. So nothing weird about the truth and biology
Nice dogma you've got there. Pity it's based pretty much entirely on what your feel.
This reads like someone insisting that laser surgery can never give you better vision because you still have the same eyes.
Are you serious? You delusional little muppet. Biological sex is biological sex. There is no queries or confusions around this. You are talking utter sh*te. Men can never EVER become women. Not in any world especially not in this one. Take your ‘dogma’ and shove it up your huge hoop
Women are fine sharing bathrooms with FtM. They are still women. Lesbians - still women. But MtF make me want to carry knives everywhere i go. And i have taught my girls the right places to slash and stab for quick bleed out (yes, we butcher). If they are in that position, getting them mad only makes it more dangerous. Better is arterial blood and possible death.
As the “trans” cult loses support, as detransitioners get more publicity, it is becoming more openly violent snd murderous. They shouldn’t be allowed on planes.
By the way, the “real ones” have Gender Identity Disorder, not “gender dysphoria.” The former appears around age 4-6 and is lifelong; the latter appears shortly after getting on social media and most outgrow it in a few years.
But by then many have destroyed their health with hormones and their bodies with surgery. GD has no diagnostic criteria past self-declaration and is closely linked with other psychiatric disorders.
This.
And then the adult trans IDing males seek to retcon reality and justify their depravity by convincing a generation of children to harm themselves.
Really fine people there, as the Burger King once said about his Nazi friends.
It's all culture bound and what we know is gleaned through different eras and with the gatekeeping of the time. Traditional transexuals have always been motivated to confirm the born in the wrong body narrative but doesn't mean we have any evidence it's true.
...motivated because that was literally the only way they were allowed to access care.
You are taking a 'tradition' caused by cis doctors refusing to help anyone who didn't fit into their preferred mould and assuming that it is what hand people actually wanted.
It's weird reading people who think they understand is because they're read so much about us by people who hate us.
Also, projecting much? "Violent and murderous." Brianna Ghey says hi. WAY more people murdered for being trans than trans murderers.
In real life, women are much more endangered than “ trans” people.dumped boyfriends, jealous husbands.
I don’t like the “trans” cult.
Hi Steve! This is one of the first essays of yours I’ve read in at least a year after dropping off the face of the internet. It’s been a very interesting and disturbing one. I left twitter, TikTok, etc. a long time ago so I miss a lot of these happenings. As someone who’s quite present in my local queer and trans communities, I was absolutely horrified reading the many posts and articles you linked. It definitely confirmed my decision to stay off those circles of the internet, but also gave me a lot of insight into the fear of and opposition to trans people. The behavior you outlined in this article is genuinely abhorrent and also a very accurate representation of the fears I hear cis people expressing. Like exactly. And it was very interesting because this kind of stuff would be so quickly condemned in my personal social circles, so I never understood where all these fears were coming from. I’d like to think that the majority of real trans communities are the same and that the crazies flock to X, but I can’t be sure. I have a question though! At what point would you say a trans person could/should use a restroom they identify with? Would you ever consider it acceptable? Only if they fully pass as cis and nobody would think otherwise? I’m curious!
"At what point would you say a trans person could/should use a restroom they identify with? Would you ever consider it acceptable? Only if they fully pass as cis and nobody would think otherwise?"
Yeah, this is a tricky question. The easy answer is "when they fully pass."
There are lots of trans women who wouldn't have provoked that horrified reaction from the woman in the bathroom because they look like women. Right now, and for many years, there have been trans women using female spaces without causing any problems.
The problem is, the question of whether one passes is VERY subjective. Especially in today's insane climate. There's a whole echo chamber on social media built around convincing people who very clearly don't pass at all that they're Gal Gadot. Plus, there's the whole "trans women don't owe you femininity" wing of trans activism that claims that anybody, even a bearded rugby player with hairy shovels for hands becomes a woman the instant they say they identify as one.
But yeah, the more I think about it, maybe the problem is the whole concept of "passing."
Because the question isn't what you can fool people into believing, the question is what is actually true. Trans women are men who wish to be perceived as women. That's absolutely fine. 95% of the time the way you're perceived is all that really matters. But I think it's a huge mistake to think it's cruel or "transphobic" if there are times when they have to defer to their biology.
So my preferred solution, which some public spaces are already adopting, is to make men's toilets gender-neutral spaces where it's normal to see all "genders" using them, and leave female spaces for females.
Who knows, in a few generations, maybe this would lead to a world where it becomes so normal to see male- and female-presenting people in a single restroom that the concept of gendered spaces fades away on its own. But the testing ground for that should be male spaces, where there is no increased risk caused by mixing. Not female spaces.
No maybe, Steve.
Sex deception is still deception, just as any crime is a crime even if it’s not identified/prosecuted.
"Sex deception is still deception, just as any crime is a crime even if it’s not identified/prosecuted."
Sure, but deceiving people about your sex isn't a crime. And in the majority of cases it would be absolutely ridiculous to treat it as one. Again, 95% of the time, perception is what matters (an obvious exception is sports).
If a guy wants to walk around the world presenting in a stereotypically feminine way, that's up to him. If he fools you, that's not his problem. The problem is managing his interaction with women's spaces.
C'mon Steve, if he fools you, that's not his problem? You got 90% of the way but didn't want to commit to your own views?
Think of Boy's Don't Cry - while the men are the true evil here, it's clear to me the protagonist doesn't get meaningful consent from her partner. Where else is it suddenly ok to lie about basic facts?
I get that someone can adopt a gender identity of the opposite sex and live without much issue, but it wouldn't be acceptable to anyone's standards to withhold this info to a potential intimate partner, for example. This means passing people can probably get by just fine but the key thing is they do actually need to accept who they are, because that is just reality. You actually can't be something you're not.
“Where else is it suddenly ok to lie about basic facts?”
I haven’t seen Boys Don’t Cry, so I’m not getting the reference, but people lie all the time. And again, in 95% of cases, it’s not viewed as a crime of any sort.
That doesn’t mean I think lying is okay. But dressing as a woman/man is obviously not lying in the sense that anybody uses the word. Otherwise fancy dress parties would be filled with “liars.” Not to mention the millions of “lies” that would be being told daily by makeup and plastic surgery.
If you’re talking specifically about lying to coerce someone into bed, that’s obviously wrong. But that’s a very specific case that wasn’t under discussion and would fit into the 5% of cases where perception isn’t all that matters.
Really not sure what you’re taking issue with or how you think I’m being inconsistent.
It is not whether he fools someone (btw misgendering some of the activists would say). It is when he demands that you accept that he literally is a woman and not a man. I have met “feminine” trans, none convince and the most convincing only gets away with for a couple of minutes at best in close proximity. Distance is hardly a factor in justifying this nonsense. Live their lives and let women live theirs.
“It is when he demands that you accept that he literally is a woman and not a man.”
Yes, agreed. But we weren’t discussing this scenario. We were talking about the potential criminality of mistaking a man for a woman.
And even if you believe you’ve never done this (spoiler:you almost certainly have) transition surgeries/hormones are only ever going to get better. There will absolutely be a point when trans women pass most of the time. And the groundwork for that point needs to be laid now.
This makes perfect sense. While I do understand that this may create fear among trans men of violence in male spaces, why should women be the ones to accommodate what trans men think they need?
But the follow on would be what your reaction would be if you went ‘across the hall’ to the men’s bathroom and a female presenting trans man was there. What would your reaction be?
“ what your reaction would be if you went ‘across the hall’ to the men’s bathroom and a female presenting trans man was there. What would your reaction be?”
Just to be clear, I presume you’re meaning trans identifying man here? Not what most people mean when they say trans man?
If so, I’d be a little surprised I guess, but no big deal. Even if this person passed fully as female, I’d be maybe minimally uncomfortable, but that discomfort wouldn’t come with any fear that they’d hurt me or do anything inappropriate.
It’s funny, one of the Reddit posts I saw while researching this was a trans woman raging because his university had designated the men’s as the “inclusive” “all-gender” bathroom and had left the women’s for women.
He had an option, everything was fine, but he could no longer justify invading the women’s.
You seem quite comfortable insisting that trans women accept being the targets of male violence. Any reason they are acceptable victims to you?
And exactly how many pass? Almost none. But the clue is in the word, pass. If they also pass as under 18, would they get into minor’s spaces? If you PASS, then you are NOT. Live your life as you please but without forcing others to live their lives according to your self perception.
“And exactly how many pass? Almost none.”
I don’t know. Nor do you. Largely because trans women who pass, by definition, aren’t read as trans women.
Yes, very obviously trans women are not women. But if a trans woman passes as a woman, then there are certain situations where them living as they please is based on YOUR perception.
There’s a good chance, for example that you’ve passed a trans woman on the street, or even shared a bathroom with one, and felt zero discomfort because you perceived them as a woman. So, and this is a serious question, what do you suggest doing with this person?
I’ve been unequivocal in my support for women’s spaces. And, of course, spaces like prisons and rape shelters and sports are different and should be managed based on sex regardless of presentation. But total absolutism seems silly as well as obviously unenforceable.
Curious where you think trans women who have been raped should go for support.
Or if you think that trans women's choices upon going to prison should be torture by constant rape (2000 times in 3 years was a published example) or torture via solitary confinement.
I feel no discomfort in meeting or dealing with trans. My non recognition of trans identified males as women is not based on my discomfort levels, as it doesn’t bother me. The passables I have met, are only passable at a distance, close contact generally tells me who is who and what is what. At least we agree on the issue of prisons which has always been my main area of concern on the issue, one I had written about prior to setting up substack and possibly won’t return to, anytime soon.
“The passables I have met, are only passable at a distance, close contact generally tells me who is who and what is what.”
Again, you can’t possibly know this. It’s like saying you can always tell when someone is lying. By definition, the lies you didn’t detect appear to you to have been truth. So you assume they were true.
Similarly, any women you didn’t detect as trans appeared to be women. So you assumed they were women.
Respectfully, I would ask you not to use cis, we are women and don't need a prefix. Thanks 😊
I was about to say the same. I know it's an ancient word that has been used in scientific terms for a very long time but I'm simply a woman. My sexual preference is my own business.
What do you mean by sexual preference?
Hi! I am actually a fellow (almost) woman and while I understand where you’re coming from, cis isn’t a derogatory word nor a prefix. It’s just an adjective people use for clarity when trans people are involved in the discussion. It comes from the Latin preposition meaning “on this side of” as opposed to trans which is “the other side of”. The word is not meant to degrade your womanhood any more than adjectives like “white” or “brunette” would. Although I apologize if it’s been used that way towards you in the past. People can be shitty.
People object to "cis" for at least two reasons:
First, it assumes that people are male or female because of their gender identity rather than their biological sex. For people who believe that biological sex is real and that acknowledging it is important for purposes of rights, safeguarding and clear communication, using "cis" is therefore a loaded term.
Second, while I'd say that many people who espouse gender identity ideology (by which I mean the belief that we are male or female because of gender identity rather than sex) don't wish to reify sex stereotypes, in practice that tends to be what gender identity boils down to. Eg a little boy will play with dolls or want to wear dresses; this is taken as proof he is "really" a girl. Stereotypes limit both men and women but they tend to be more harmful for women and girls. To call a woman "cis" is therefore taken to mean that she identifies with the stereotypes associated with her sex, stereotypes many women find degrading.
In your explanation of the term you say it just means "this side of" - can you expand on this? This side of what?
So just for clarity, whether or not you agree with it: nobody (at least out of the properly informed people I’ve come across) is claiming that gender identity determines whether you are male or female.
The argument that you’re likely remembering is a little bit different. It states that sex and gender and different concepts. Sex is a permanent, biological trait. Things like chromosomes, hormones, genitalia, male vs female etc are part of sex.
Gender is a social construct that we have developed around the biological reality of sex. This does not mean that gender is not real, that argument is silly and confusing imo. Gender is a complex series of learned behaviors and mannerisms that we replicate over generations. People sometimes object to this saying that it boils gender down to stereotypes, but that’s kind of what we’re addressing when we say gender isn’t binary. One does not have to conform to all gendered behaviors to be a woman, man, etc. Some people feel the need to create additional labels across that spectrum, but that’s not mandatory.
In summary of this point, people are arguing that gender identity determines gender. Not that it determines sex. And if they are arguing it determines sex they’re being silly and are factually incorrect.
Second, you gave an example of “gender ideology”, that a young boy will play with dolls and wear dresses and people will say he is really a girl. Now, there are plenty of crazy people in the world. So I will not deny that someone out there believes something like that, nor that you’ve witnessed someone say something similar.
However, it’s important to note that (and this is coming from someone who knows dozens of real life trans people and even more people who support them) almost nobody actually believes that. Like I have really, truly, never met a single person, trans or otherwise, who would look at a boy playing with dolls and say he is a girl. Again not denying that you’ve seen it. But the internet amplifies rage inducing opinions and it’s important to keep that in mind.
Regarding your point about stereotypes, I agree they are harmful. But when people say “cis” to refer to people, we’ll use women as an example, they are not labeling that woman as a “stereotypical girly girl” and saying that is what defines her womanhood. They are saying that the woman was born as a female and is comfortable with the gender that comes as the default for it in our society. I know plenty of cis women who are not particularly feminine.
Cis = someone who identifies with their gender assigned at birth. This is most people, so the adjective cis is rarely needed unless we’re discussing trans people, in which case it’s a helpful distinction.
So I was explaining the linguistic origin of the term. It’s a Latin preposition that means “this side of”, as I said. Some other examples of English prepositions: Around, across, within, between, beyond, despite, etc.
These words don’t mean anything on their own and cis is especially confusing since it’s Latin.
To answer your question directly. Cis can mean on this side of anything. When referring to people who are not trans, the original term is actually “cisgender”. It was later shortened to cis in certain contexts for convenience.
The terms cis and trans can also be found in chemistry and cellular biology. We have record of them being used to describe gender and or sexuality dating back to over a century ago.
"Gender is a social construct that we have developed around the biological reality of sex."
I think this is actually the sticking point for many people, myself included.
I've yet to see how "gender," as it's used by some members of the trans community, is anything more than, the collection of stereotypical male/female behaviours and expectations that appeals to a particular individual.
And by this definition, it seems obvious that there are as many genders as there are people. So while, yes, those stereotypical behaviours and expectations are socially constructed, we still see, in every single person, a different constellation of those stereotypes. And, indeed, we see many women who defy those stereotypes in various ways while still being women.
I've written about this here. https://commentary.steveqj.com/p/trans-women-are-not-women-and-thats
p.s. On "almost nobody believing" that a boy who plays with plays with dolls is really a girl, I've lost count of the number of times I've seen people making arguments exactly like this.
The article I've just linked to has a few. Here's trans charity Mermaids showing off training materials that literally presents gender on a continuum from G.I Joe to Barbie (https://x.com/steevqj/status/1755353186687180906?s=20). Trans reddit is filled with people explaining that they knew they were trans as children because they liked playing with dolls or wearing their mother's makeup.
It's always difficult to get a true sense of how prevalent a certain attitude is within a group. I try to be very careful about painting in broad strokes. But I think the viewpoint is more common than you're painting it here.
“nobody (at least out of the properly informed people I’ve come across) is claiming that gender identity determines whether you are male or female.”
This just isn't true. Gender recognition certificates change a record of someone being male to being female, or vice versa. The whole problem of males in women's sports and in women's spaces rests on the claim that these people are now, for all practical purposes, the opposite sex to the one they were born.
The Sandie Peggie case in Scotland involves a nurse who was suspended for objecting to a male person in the female changing room. In the witness box this male person - a medical doctor - claimed to be biologically female. None of the NHS witnesses defending the treatment of Peggie will admit that Upton is male.
Gender identity is a bait and switch. We are asked to accept that a male person is female but as that is self-evidently untrue, a middle step is fabricated - we are asked to accept him not as female, but as a woman (what does “woman” mean? Insert circular definition). He then claims the right to spaces and resources reserved for female people. Alan Sokal has gone into more detail about the use of the word woman and how in practical terms it still means adult human female.
https://thecritic.co.uk/on-the-deceptive-use-of-words/
Theo, cis states that gender identity takes priority over biological sex, that is the conflict at stake regardless of your pontification around sex and gender. What defines Man and Woman.
I’m not sureeeeee what this is addressing/what you’re trying to add that I didn’t already say.
Others have responded with the same point but using cis and trans woman as a label priorities gender identity over biological sex. A trans women is a woman because they have a female gender identity, they are a kind of woman. If biological sex were prioritized the same person would be a trans man, a man that is trans in appearance, or has a female gender identity, if you believe in such things (I don't). Trans man, emphasizing biology, is of course confusing for people who are adjusted to current usage, so trans-identified man is what we should use, as it respects reality.
Thank you. Although it isn't usually a derogatory word, it has been hijacked by the 'trans' community as a slur.
My hackles just rise when I see it 🤣
Its use is very recent. If you need any prefix just say “real”
You will never be a woman Theo, no almost about it.
…The clown suddenly disengages
I swear you make fun of yourselves.
I’m not trans you absolute clown 🤦
It isn't for YOU to decide what WE consider to be derogatory. Arguably, "tr**ny" and "ni***r" aren't derogatory to some, but I'd like to see you call Stephen Halliday the former, or shout out the latter in the middle of Brixton.
I’m also loving this we vs. you thing. What exactly is the difference between us?
I mean, okay. Those are not at all the same thing. But you’re clearly not here for a good faith discussion.
Also, after looking back at my comment, I don’t specifically refer to women at all in it. So I’m unsure what term you would have preferred I use there. Non-trans-people? That’s what cis means.
Just woman will do 😊
I wasn’t talking about women specifically though, just people who aren’t trans in general?
People who aren't trans are men and women.
I’m having a hard time following your train of thought here. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m working off of a couple assumptions based on your post history. You believe that sex determines your gender, and thus that trans women are actually men and vice versa for trans men. Wouldn’t trans people also fall under the category of “men and women” in that case? If gender is binary and can’t be changed, everyone is either a man or a woman. So how are those two categories helpful for distinguishing trans people from people who are not trans? This is why I find cis to be a useful term.
That is certainly correct. There are only men and women. Trans is used to describe one category, which in itself means you don't need to put a label on the rest of us.
Do you believe, as Theo says, that sex determines gender? (I just think that sex is sex, and gender is an exasperating term which has some use in describing social norms but tends to be unhelpful when talking about individuals).
I agree with you, sex is sex and gender just gets in the way.
I understand what you mean now! Thank you for explaining
If you are using 'women' to cover trans women and cis women both, no issue.
If you are trying to say that trans women don't exist, or that trans men are still women, then you are going to run into problems.
Is voyeurism not a crime, Steve?
Every time such a male enters a female private space …
Saying things like this does not make you persuasive. It just makes you appear ignorant of the facts.
It is not, generally speaking, illegal for a man to enter a female space. In fact, given the current ridiculous state of the law, it could be considered discriminatory to prevent a man from entering a female space. We've seen this play out several times with women being ignored or even penalised when they object to men in gym changing rooms and public bathrooms.
It seems you think it's valiant to be absolutist and to brook no nuance, but this approach causes more problems than it solves. We obviously agree on the importance and value of female-only spaces. But you're not going to solve this problem by yelling at it or high-horsing everyone who acknowledges a little more nuance than you do.
Lord god almighty what has transpired while I was asleep
I suspect that is not the case. I do have a male friend who likes to hear women peeing but I'm absolutely certain he doesn't visit women's toilets to do so.
You absolutely certain about that libby ? I wouldn’t be so certain, we have precisely no idea what others we claim to be friends do in their private life and knowing he has that pervy interest it’s potentially not just where he leaves it lol !!
Good for you & for him, Libby.
That in no way changes the fact that there are AGP males who do enter female spaces for more than just peeing (themselves).
Do you truly believe that being possessed of a “female gender identity” magically comes with a guarantee that an individual’s male pattern violence, physical advantage over women, and even paraphilic behaviours are eliminated?
Given that "make pattern violence" claims are based on one study from Sweden that doesn't show anything if the sort, and hormones do eliminate physical advantage in about two years, and 'paraphilic behaviours' after pretty obviously you projecting creepy cis men onto trans women...
Trans “women” are men, Glau.
Just ask the UK Supreme Court.
And it’s “male” pattern violence. If you’re going to scare quote something, at least get it right.
Dhejne et al’s study absolutely *does* show male pattern violence among trans identifying males: they simply neglected to include the rather obvious analysis in their paper, as it would (of course) invalidate their biases (and yours):
https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/mbm-briefing-on-dhjene-et-al.-april-2021-1.pdf
Whether “cis” or not, males are still males. Or as the UK ruled, men.
As for hormones eliminating physical advantage after 2 years … you again display your overwhelming biases and underwhelming appreciation of academic scholarship:
https://www.womenarehuman.com/research-studies-confirm-trans-athletes-have-advantages-over-women/
Read those and weep for your BS claim that “hormones do eliminate physical advantage” (ever!):
Males are larger on average than females, as we are a sexually dimorphic species. Hormones don’t make trans identifying males shorter, nor do they affect myriad other aspects of male advantage (see Hilton 2020 from the link above). And comparing a bunch of out of shape TIMs to fit & athletic women … well that’s just deceptive study design.
Do you have any valid arguments or *evidence* in support of your claims?
Or are you going to flounce away now? If so, do try to stick the landing — you folks always look so silly when you land face first.
Do I have evidence? Quite a bit. Is it worth trying to convince you? No, I don't think it is.
You want us gone and don't care what happens after.
So that’s a “no” to having any evidence then. Colour me shocked.
I don’t want you gone — stop being so dramatic, it’s really not good for your mental health to entertain persecution fantasies.
I, like many sane people who follow the *actual* science (and the staggering lack thereof in support of any “trans rights” claims) want:
1. No XY in XX spaces. TIFs can choose where they want to be: as females, they face higher levels of sexual assault than males, so XX spaces are a potential refuge to them. But no one is proposing to force Buck Angel out of XY spaces.
2. Leave the kids alone.
Do whatever you like as adults.
Present however makes you happy.
On your own dime.
But female persons, women & girls that is, have rights too. And since suffrage & the Civil Rights era, there has never existed a right for males to occupy female single-sex spaces, sports, or services.
And ALL children have a right to *evidence-based* healthcare, both physical & mental, as well as a secular education — neither randos online nor untrained educators are best positioned to provide guidance on these healthcare topics, and belief in a gendered essence is as firmly rooted in material reality as Catholics’ belief in transubstantiation.
And all of us gender heretics have the right to call a male a man.
Get Ovarit.
And he’s still your friend with that creepy interest and he thinks it’s okay to talk about it and expect people to be alright with him finding listening to women pee as interesting or a turn on?! Haha choose your mates more wisely
I hate that the argument has given toilets and women’s shelters equal footing. I don’t give a rats ass which toilet anyone uses. But I DO feel very strongly about preserving single sex spaces in medical settings, shelters, and where women are processing trauma.
I’m not here to persuade you. I’m here to shame you.
If you had an ounce of intellectual integrity, or curiosity, or anything but male pattern hubris (like I often have), you’d consider the possibility that the conclusion you’ve reached is flawed.
Read the fucking philosopher’s post.
Engage with her instead of angry old me.
But seriously, open yourself up to the possibility that perhaps she might have considered the nuances even more deeply than you have, and might bring you some insights that you seem lacking from your male pov.
Get. Over. Yourself.
You’ll end up a better man as a result, and a better ally.
I can’t figure out what the argument is
"I’m not here to persuade you. I’m here to shame you."
😅 Sadly, I think he's been pretty clear that his motivations aren't about productive conversation or change but self aggrandisement.
Reminds me of talking to the white saviours of the anti-racist movement. It's my first encounter with the TERF variant.
Tf is going on 😭
Steve is going to get his hypocritical ass handed to him shortly.
That’s WTF is going on Theo.
Read for fucking comprehension man.
“Steve is going to get his hypocritical ass handed to him shortly.”
Whenever you’re ready. I’m literally quaking.
Steve, will you ever respond to my repeated question about how “mooting an issue” (which you admit is impossible anyway) can be read as anything but pontificating to women?
I’ve already responded to it several times. The fact that this doesn’t appear to satisfy you is of literally no concern to me I’m afraid.
I’ll wait patiently to have my “hypocritical ass handed to me” as punishment.
Speaking of which, weren’t you all supposed to be laughing at me by now? What happened?
Are you not as important as you thought? Or did you figure out that the only person who seemed to have trouble understanding the very simple hypothetical I presented is you?
You haven’t actually responded Steve.
I know you think you have, but what you did was handwave away criticism.
I’m taking my time, best served cold and all that. And, as you might be aware, fascism needs a beat down right now as well, so your weak-ass “brilliance” comes later.
"I’m taking my time, best served cold and all that"
🤣 Okay. I'll keep one eye over my shoulder.
Also, why do you keep putting "brilliance" in quotes? I've never described myself as brilliant.
It’s in your publication description, you bonehead.
Or are you saying the discussion is brilliant, but neither you nor your writing are?
Frank Lee’s presence seems to indicate otherwise, as does *your* inability to reflect based on a simple observation: when you are challenged, you get super defensive instead of, you know, engaging constructively.
But other than that, brilliant dude.
Sheer blinding brilliance.
"Or are you saying the discussion is brilliant, but neither you nor your writing are?"
Ah! There is a shred of reading comprehension!! Yes, I've never described myself as brilliant, I'm clearly describing some of the conversations as brilliant, just as I also variously describe them as baffling, and, as you're so ably demonstrating, bizarre.
Okay, as fun as this sad little game has been, I'm done now. You've made yourself look more than stupid enough without me continuing to point it out. I'm genuinely sorry for whatever has happened (or hasn't happened) in your life that makes you behave like this.
If you ever feel like doing the one worthwhile thing you've threatened to do and actually share that research, I'd appreciate the opportunity to learn something. Otherwise, have fun trying and failing to organise that humiliating pile-on you promised. Rest assured that I take you and your threats and insults very seriously.
No such thing as CIS thanks Theo. Your comment is null and void once you use that
Outstanding article! I wish I’d read it 2 weeks ago when a 25 year old woman told me what a bigot I am.
Read the article and many of the responses. Impressed by the generally thoughtful and reasonable things people say. Because I have been unsure what to think on occasions I have been called a terf and roundly abused if I didn’t sound quite 'on message', whatever that happened to be. Thanks for this.
We can take care of all the "nuance" - or nonsense - by relieving ourselves of the notion that "trans" is a thing. FFS this is tiresome.
In the early 70s I was a contractor on an Airforce base. At that time female airmen were being assigned to clean both women's and men's WC. They didn't shut them down and a female airman was cleaning urinals while I was using one. I've stood next to a beautiful skirt raised Thai kathoey at urinals in the men's room in Bangkok. In Thailand and China there have been women cleaning the men's room with me in it. In Xi'an a big restroom access walked into the urinal area. Women turned left right away to go to the lady's women only throne room, men walked past them to the men's thrones. In none of those cases did I feel threatened or even uncomfortable.
That is very different from nude spaces like women's shower and changing rooms at a gym. If you have an exposed penis, you don't belong there because I have no doubt that that would be uncomfortable at the very least for women also in a state of nudity. The problem with transwomen is that women have no way of knowing if someone has true gender dysphoria and are not likely to be a threat or they are attention seekers or worse.
“That is very different from nude spaces like women's shower and changing rooms at a gym.”
🎯
One of the most frequent mistakes I see people making on this issue is acting as if all private spaces are the same or serve the same function.
We're male airmen assigned to clean both?
I don't know. I never went into the women's head. No one ever told me that
My advice to men who think they are women. If you think that, there are a few things that you need to understand. First of all is that you are still a man because you can't change your biological sex. It's okay to dress any way you wish and to adopt any superficial, stereotypical attributes of women that you desire. Live your life. No one should care, I certainly don't. However, because women are entitled to be treated fairly and to enjoy privacy from men there are certain things that are prohibited to you and me because we are men. You can't compete against women in most sports because it would be unfair. You can't go into women's private places like restrooms and locker rooms because that would make them feel unsafe. Finally, if you are a criminal you certainly can't be imprisoned with women.
That's it, just like me.
"no one should care"
Yeah that's where your fantasy about how we should handle this crashes and burns. Trans woven are assaulted by men at 4x the rate cis women are. People care, and they use violence to demonstrate that they do.
It's like saying 'no one should rape' and expecting women to pretend it doesn't happen anyways.
Glau: The way you deal with that is law enforcement just like any other assault not by forcing people to believe stupid shit like men can become women.
Still waiting for the admission that 'no one cares' is bullshit.
Glau: Now you are misquoting me. I said no one “should” care and I certainly don’t. I can’t speak for anyone but myself. Nor can you. If someone tells you that he is Napoleon are you required to agree with him? If you fail to endorse his delusions are you being Napoleonphobic? It it exactly the same situation if a man tells you that he is a woman. No one can change their biological sex. The mentally ill are entitled to freely live their lives with sympathy and care but not forced acceptance of their fantasies.
Damn. I almost didn’t read this because of the title. So glad I did! Beautifully written. Thank you! Subscribing.
Really refreshing to hear this from the male perspective. Interesting thought experiment.
We lost a perfectly winnable election partly because voters saw progressives tied up in knots over this issue and wondered where common sense he gone. It’s a big deal for the tiny fraction of the population who have gender dysphoria but to the average working person it’s irrelevant.
I do agree women should not be described as bigots if they want female only spaces kept as they are. The fight for equality is only decades old and these gains are not in cement. The fact it was progressives who tried to dismantle them is shocking. If we want to build more unisex facilities- that’s great but sending trans women to a women’s shelter or prison is madness.
If I was to suggest as a white male how my black family and friends should feel safe and comfortable around that would be seen as insensitive and inappropriate
I feel your first sentence nails it! I have long wondered just how much damage this has done in certain areas, if you consider the number versus the noise. This in no way belittles the problems ANYONE has.
Great stuff Steve, really well done. Have you heard of “She’s Not Your Trauma/Therapy”?It’s essentially a framework for domestic violence work. The idea being that a man suffering from mental health issues cannot, and should not, use this as an excuse for being abusive towards his female intimate partner.
I absolutely agree with the idea. Unfortunately it gets tricky when confronting the ‘trans’ issue. The theory is part of a broader framework of ‘Intersectional Feminism’ (so I’m told), so if a man says he is a woman, then he should be treated as such.
The reason your article resonated with me is that during a recent conversation, I took the ‘side’ of JK Rowling stating that I believed people are attributing beliefs to her that she doesn’t have (she has said many times that she isn’t trans phobic). She simply believes (as I do) that ‘transgender’ men do not belong in women’s prisons/bathrooms/rape crises centres etc.
A rapist who says he is a woman just before sentencing should not be sent to a women’s prison. If there is any doubt about his gender, maybe seek the advice of his victims.
Anyway, the person I was discussing this with had a unique take, along the lines of the theories I mentioned earlier.
They believed that, as JK Rowling was herself a victim of domestic abuse, her current stance was simply Ms Rowling working through her own trauma as a victim by placing trans people “in danger”.
Strange times.
I've taken JKR's position in discussions. Well, I say "discussions" but generally it immediately results in vile insults and being told to "end" myself. It is unfortunate that in the main it's a subject which cannot be debated. Going fairly smoothly here though. 🤞
Snap!
I have dared to wonder whether the proliferation of these very partisan discussions over social media in recent years, possibly in far greater proportion than the frequency of the circumstance itself, has not helped to create some of the great divide we find politically? Especially in areas of very conservative countries like America where the Culture Wars have been so damaging.
Have whatever opinion you will about bathrooms, sports, or trans youth, I am not here to debate any of those things. The anti- trans laws being proposed & passed in the States & the UK go well beyond it. There was proposed in Montana that would charge any trans person even if they have had full surgeries with indecent exposure in bathrooms, changing rooms, pools. How they can tell who had what parts originally I don't know. The people leading the charge on these laws do not care about women's safety. They are the same people endangering women's healthcare and advocating for ending no fault divorce. Making it harder for abused women to leave their husbands. Worrying about who comes into the bathroom is the least of my concerns as a woman. Both domestic violence and hate crimes against all kinds of minority groups have soared since the Grand Master of Protecting Women has been elected.
“The people leading the charge on these laws do not care about women's safety. They are the same people endangering women's healthcare and advocating for ending no fault divorce”
Yeah, I absolutely agree. As all too often happens, the reactionaries and extremists have taken a valid issue and used it as an excuse to attack a group they hate. The fact they could frame it as caring about women’s right (people like Matt Walsh spring to mind) was just a convenient excuse.
Others, and I’m seeing it more and more often, were formerly sane, nuanced adults who have been radicalised by the years of threats and gaslighting.
I really hope sanity can be restored.
Could you fill me in on what is happening in UK? I live there but have not read of any draconian situations.
I have one objection.
I prefer Brunello and Barolo.
🥂