"likely the number of actual assults that would occur as a result of trans in women's bathrooms is likely pretty small."
Two things here, first, the widespread mistake of treating sexual assault as the only reason to keep males out of female spaces. If I stand in a female space naked, with an erection, but don't assault anybody, do women …
"likely the number of actual assults that would occur as a result of trans in women's bathrooms is likely pretty small."
Two things here, first, the widespread mistake of treating sexual assault as the only reason to keep males out of female spaces. If I stand in a female space naked, with an erection, but don't assault anybody, do women still have a right to complain? If women feel so uncomfortable that they're driven out of spaces built for them, do they have a right to complain? I think yes.
Secondly, even where we're talking specifically about assault, we're talking about *additional* assaults. Yes, women face dangers from men in many spaces. And anything we can do to reduce that is great. But if we abolish women's spaces, we're weighing additional assaults against 50% of the population against assaults against <1% of the population who are actually less vulnerable to sexual violence and its consequences (retain some strength advantages, can't get pregnant, may not even have a vagina).
And yes, antebellum white people had good reason to be uncomfortable around black people. But a) attacks on white people were still vanishingly rare, and brutally and disproportionately punished. And b) as you say, those reasons were almost entirely based on the cruelty those white people inflicted on slaves.
You're glossing over the vastly different reasons *why* those fears might exist, to arrive at something approximating, "all segregation is basically the same." No, it really, really isn't.
If women were uncomfortable around men because they'd stolen us from our homes and forced us and our children to work to death for them, we'd be having a very different conversation.
But any "honest application" of a rule regarding sex-based segregation is necessarily sex-based. I see no way to "honestly apply" a rule about racial segregation without being honest about why it's even an issue. You haven't been honest about that here.
> Two things here, first, the widespread mistake of treating sexual assault as the only reason to keep males out of female spaces. If I stand in a female space naked,
We agree, indeed as I wrote, I already stated that your better argument is about the discomfort women would have. So lets just focus on that sub-area that we both agree with as the key one.
> You're glossing over the vastly different reasons *why* those fears might exist,
No I am not. Recall I am 'confused' about a valid 'rule' here, I am simply noting a parallel situation. If you believe there is a valid rule that separates these two casese you are free to use any aspect of these situations in order to craft your rule. I am open to hearing it.
> But any "honest application" of a rule regarding sex-based segregation ... You haven't been honest about that here.
Well let me clarify here. For me the issues is when can one group require exclusion of another group from some communally manged space. I think a good rule should apply broadly to sex-based and non-sex based spaces. It should be a general rule about when exclusion is warranted.
Of course there can be sex-spaced based instances of the general rule, that is not problem. But I am very bothered is we cannot express the principle generally and then instantiated it appropriately for sex spaces. Indeed if we cannot do that, then I fear we are begin parochial and merely justifying prejudices that hold in our present moment. this his the high standard which I cannot see my way towards right now.
You might say, Dan you are holding us to too high of a standard. Perhaps. But I will just notice that down thru history when humanity "was up to no good" and justifying shit that later we would say "what the fuck were they thinking?" We would create specialty rules with specialty justifications for specialty cases. Hence my desire for a generalized rule. Something like:
Humanity is justified in excluding one sub-population from a community managed resource for benefit of another sub-population WHEN ...
I am having difficulty finishing that sentence in a satisfactory way. Can you express this rule in a way that you can stand behind?
"Humanity is justified in excluding one sub-population from a community managed resource for benefit of another sub-population WHEN ..."
I just realised I didn't actually answer this question. I'll start by saying that I don't think a generalised rule is necessary. Justification for exclusion will always require grey areas and careful, case-by-case thinking. But generally speaking, my answer would be:
WHEN one sub-population, by nature, poses a measurable threat to the safety of the other sub-population. Especially when the exclusion doesn't in any way harm the first sub-population.
The "by nature" clause is important because as we discussed above, if you've mistreated a population for years, and they bear some malice towards you because of that, it's not their fault. That's not by nature, It's because of your cruelty. There are measurable, natural differences between males and females. Still waiting for any corollary between black people and white people.
As I mentioned in the other reply, given the aforementioned cruelty, racial segregation would probably have been absolutely fine with most black people. The only reason it wasn't, is because it actively harmed black people (failing the second clause of my "rule"). Both in the inferior standard of facilities available to them, and the massive head starts white people had in society with regards to education, land, infrastructure, wealth, and opportunity.
Level out those playing fields and I think plenty of black people would have argued for racial segregation just as strongly as any KKK member. Mainly because of the threat white people posed to *black* people's safety.
"Recall I am 'confused' about a valid 'rule' here, I am simply noting a parallel situation."
I'm just really struggling to take your "confusion" seriously though Dan. Are you able to articulate the difference between a man and a woman? Or not even articulate it. Are you clear, just on an instinctive, observational level, about the differences between male and female bodies? If so, there's your "rule." If not, you're lagging behind most children who, at three-months-old, can already tell the difference.
Again, there is no parallel. The difference between black and white humans is literally skin deep. Because "black" and "white" are such broad, blurry categories. The difference between males and females is not. And again, we're not even talking about segregation in the racial segregation sense. Male facilities really are "separate but equal." If black/white facilities had *actually* been separate but equal, if black people were left unmolested by white people to lead their lives, if they'd been given what they were promised as compensation for their work during slavery, there'd have been far less opposition to racial segregation.
I suspect, given some of the arguments you made over the past few months, that deep down you believe that there's more to it than this. That there's some fundamental cognitive or genetic difference between dark skinned humans and light skinned humans. You seem uncomfortable admitting it in so many words, because most people will label you a racist and yell at you, but your arguments suggest very strongly that you still believe it.
But if my suspicions are correct, then you're wrong. And to see why you're wrong, all you need to do is seriously try to articulate the differences. Articulating them for males and females is easy. What are the "parallel" differences between black people and white people? What positives and negatives came from ending racial segregation? What are the "parallel" positives and negatives that would come from abolishing single-sex spaces?
I don't think you've thought about these questions very carefully, either from a "black" point of view or a female point of view.
"likely the number of actual assults that would occur as a result of trans in women's bathrooms is likely pretty small."
Two things here, first, the widespread mistake of treating sexual assault as the only reason to keep males out of female spaces. If I stand in a female space naked, with an erection, but don't assault anybody, do women still have a right to complain? If women feel so uncomfortable that they're driven out of spaces built for them, do they have a right to complain? I think yes.
Secondly, even where we're talking specifically about assault, we're talking about *additional* assaults. Yes, women face dangers from men in many spaces. And anything we can do to reduce that is great. But if we abolish women's spaces, we're weighing additional assaults against 50% of the population against assaults against <1% of the population who are actually less vulnerable to sexual violence and its consequences (retain some strength advantages, can't get pregnant, may not even have a vagina).
And yes, antebellum white people had good reason to be uncomfortable around black people. But a) attacks on white people were still vanishingly rare, and brutally and disproportionately punished. And b) as you say, those reasons were almost entirely based on the cruelty those white people inflicted on slaves.
You're glossing over the vastly different reasons *why* those fears might exist, to arrive at something approximating, "all segregation is basically the same." No, it really, really isn't.
If women were uncomfortable around men because they'd stolen us from our homes and forced us and our children to work to death for them, we'd be having a very different conversation.
But any "honest application" of a rule regarding sex-based segregation is necessarily sex-based. I see no way to "honestly apply" a rule about racial segregation without being honest about why it's even an issue. You haven't been honest about that here.
> Two things here, first, the widespread mistake of treating sexual assault as the only reason to keep males out of female spaces. If I stand in a female space naked,
We agree, indeed as I wrote, I already stated that your better argument is about the discomfort women would have. So lets just focus on that sub-area that we both agree with as the key one.
> You're glossing over the vastly different reasons *why* those fears might exist,
No I am not. Recall I am 'confused' about a valid 'rule' here, I am simply noting a parallel situation. If you believe there is a valid rule that separates these two casese you are free to use any aspect of these situations in order to craft your rule. I am open to hearing it.
> But any "honest application" of a rule regarding sex-based segregation ... You haven't been honest about that here.
Well let me clarify here. For me the issues is when can one group require exclusion of another group from some communally manged space. I think a good rule should apply broadly to sex-based and non-sex based spaces. It should be a general rule about when exclusion is warranted.
Of course there can be sex-spaced based instances of the general rule, that is not problem. But I am very bothered is we cannot express the principle generally and then instantiated it appropriately for sex spaces. Indeed if we cannot do that, then I fear we are begin parochial and merely justifying prejudices that hold in our present moment. this his the high standard which I cannot see my way towards right now.
You might say, Dan you are holding us to too high of a standard. Perhaps. But I will just notice that down thru history when humanity "was up to no good" and justifying shit that later we would say "what the fuck were they thinking?" We would create specialty rules with specialty justifications for specialty cases. Hence my desire for a generalized rule. Something like:
Humanity is justified in excluding one sub-population from a community managed resource for benefit of another sub-population WHEN ...
I am having difficulty finishing that sentence in a satisfactory way. Can you express this rule in a way that you can stand behind?
"Humanity is justified in excluding one sub-population from a community managed resource for benefit of another sub-population WHEN ..."
I just realised I didn't actually answer this question. I'll start by saying that I don't think a generalised rule is necessary. Justification for exclusion will always require grey areas and careful, case-by-case thinking. But generally speaking, my answer would be:
WHEN one sub-population, by nature, poses a measurable threat to the safety of the other sub-population. Especially when the exclusion doesn't in any way harm the first sub-population.
The "by nature" clause is important because as we discussed above, if you've mistreated a population for years, and they bear some malice towards you because of that, it's not their fault. That's not by nature, It's because of your cruelty. There are measurable, natural differences between males and females. Still waiting for any corollary between black people and white people.
As I mentioned in the other reply, given the aforementioned cruelty, racial segregation would probably have been absolutely fine with most black people. The only reason it wasn't, is because it actively harmed black people (failing the second clause of my "rule"). Both in the inferior standard of facilities available to them, and the massive head starts white people had in society with regards to education, land, infrastructure, wealth, and opportunity.
Level out those playing fields and I think plenty of black people would have argued for racial segregation just as strongly as any KKK member. Mainly because of the threat white people posed to *black* people's safety.
"Recall I am 'confused' about a valid 'rule' here, I am simply noting a parallel situation."
I'm just really struggling to take your "confusion" seriously though Dan. Are you able to articulate the difference between a man and a woman? Or not even articulate it. Are you clear, just on an instinctive, observational level, about the differences between male and female bodies? If so, there's your "rule." If not, you're lagging behind most children who, at three-months-old, can already tell the difference.
Again, there is no parallel. The difference between black and white humans is literally skin deep. Because "black" and "white" are such broad, blurry categories. The difference between males and females is not. And again, we're not even talking about segregation in the racial segregation sense. Male facilities really are "separate but equal." If black/white facilities had *actually* been separate but equal, if black people were left unmolested by white people to lead their lives, if they'd been given what they were promised as compensation for their work during slavery, there'd have been far less opposition to racial segregation.
I suspect, given some of the arguments you made over the past few months, that deep down you believe that there's more to it than this. That there's some fundamental cognitive or genetic difference between dark skinned humans and light skinned humans. You seem uncomfortable admitting it in so many words, because most people will label you a racist and yell at you, but your arguments suggest very strongly that you still believe it.
But if my suspicions are correct, then you're wrong. And to see why you're wrong, all you need to do is seriously try to articulate the differences. Articulating them for males and females is easy. What are the "parallel" differences between black people and white people? What positives and negatives came from ending racial segregation? What are the "parallel" positives and negatives that would come from abolishing single-sex spaces?
I don't think you've thought about these questions very carefully, either from a "black" point of view or a female point of view.