Banning ‘Woke’ Words in State Documents, Arkansas Governor Signs Executive Order

[icehorse]

The point is that you have not demonstrated that there is a legitimate fear of being assaulted by transgender women in public bathrooms.

However there is a legitimate fear of transgender women being assaulted by men. Have you ever considered tying to understand that?

See post #455, which strongly implies that your ally agrees that 7.5 million women will be assaulted in public places.

I do understand the point you make about trans women. But society largely runs in a utilitarian manner - as I believe it should - and your point is extremely weak from a utilitarian perspective. This is NOT to say we should ignore the fears of trans women. But we should NOT make all women less secure in order to help the tiny number of trans women you're discussing.

We need to constrain ourselves to considering only those solutions that help trans women without further endangering women.

 

[Revoltingest]

...post #455, which strongly implies....

That's the kind of language you decry as "straw".

 

[SkepticThinker]

So something on the order of 30 million women - in the US alone - will be assaulted by men. In the stats I listed, that you copied:

15% occurred in public places
10% occurred in enclosed public areas

So rest rooms and locker rooms were not explicitly mentioned, but isn't it more than reasonable to assume that of the combined 25% from above, a significant percentage of those 7.5 MILLION assaults would occur in rest rooms or locker rooms?

Let's try looking at something more on point:


"Data come from public record requests of criminal incident reports related to assault, sex crimes, and voyeurism in public restrooms, locker rooms, and dressing rooms to measure safety and privacy violations in these spaces. This study finds that the passage of such laws is not related to the number or frequency of criminal incidents in these spaces. Additionally, the study finds that reports of privacy and safety violations in public restrooms, locker rooms, and changing rooms are exceedingly rare. This study provides evidence that fears of increased safety and privacy violations as a result of nondiscrimination laws are not empirically grounded."

Gender Identity Nondiscrimination Laws in Public Accommodations: a Review of Evidence Regarding Safety and Privacy in Public Restrooms, Locker Rooms, and Changing Rooms - Sexuality Research and Social Policy

Legislation, regulations, litigation, and ballot propositions affecting public restroom access for transgender people increased drastically in the last three years. Opponents of gender identity inclusive public accommodations nondiscrimination laws often cite fear of safety and privacy...

link.springer.com

“Over 200 municipalities and 18 states have nondiscrimination laws protecting transgender people’s access to facilities consistent with the gender they live every day,” according to the coalition. "None of those jurisdictions have [sic] seen a rise in sexual violence or other public safety issues due to nondiscrimination laws. Assaulting another person in a restroom or changing room remains against the law in every single state.

Strangio also noted that allowing transgender people to use the bathroom corresponding to their gender identity “doesn’t increase in any way public safety incidents.”

There are two central falsehoods to the legislators’ reasoning, Strangio said. One is "that transgender people aren’t real and [are] inherently dangerous.” The second falsehood is that without HB2, "non-transgender people will take advantage" of the situation -- for example, a man could dress up as a woman to enter a woman's bathroom.

“All this does is to heighten gender policing of everyone by law enforcement, and individual people who do not conform to gender norms are targeted," Strangio said.

Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence Organizations Debunk 'Bathroom Predator Myth'

The myth does more harm than good, transgender advocates say.

abcnews.go.com

"Based on our review of sexual assault complaints in Atlanta, Dallas, Miami Beach, Miami Gardens and Tucson, before and after an official amendment to the human rights ordinance in that locality, we did not find evidence of sexual assaults taking place in which men, under the guise of being women or transgender, entered women’s bathrooms to commit a sexual assault or otherwise victimize women.
Our overall findings are consistent with the research literature on sexual assault, which indicates that victims of sexual assault are primarily female (over 90 percent) and that, in 8 of 10 cases, the assault is not perpetrated by a stranger but rather by a person known to the victim, such as an acquaintance or intimate partner.5"

https://www.policinginstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/PF_Research-Brief_JULY-2017-FINAL-1.pdf

 

[SkepticThinker]

So something on the order of 30 million women - in the US alone - will be assaulted by men. In the stats I listed, that you copied:

15% occurred in public places
10% occurred in enclosed public areas

So rest rooms and locker rooms were not explicitly mentioned, but isn't it more than reasonable to assume that of the combined 25% from above, a significant percentage of those 7.5 MILLION assaults would occur in rest rooms or locker rooms?

Let's try looking at something more on point:


"Data come from public record requests of criminal incident reports related to assault, sex crimes, and voyeurism in public restrooms, locker rooms, and dressing rooms to measure safety and privacy violations in these spaces. This study finds that the passage of such laws is not related to the number or frequency of criminal incidents in these spaces. Additionally, the study finds that reports of privacy and safety violations in public restrooms, locker rooms, and changing rooms are exceedingly rare. This study provides evidence that fears of increased safety and privacy violations as a result of nondiscrimination laws are not empirically grounded."

Gender Identity Nondiscrimination Laws in Public Accommodations: a Review of Evidence Regarding Safety and Privacy in Public Restrooms, Locker Rooms, and Changing Rooms - Sexuality Research and Social Policy

Legislation, regulations, litigation, and ballot propositions affecting public restroom access for transgender people increased drastically in the last three years. Opponents of gender identity inclusive public accommodations nondiscrimination laws often cite fear of safety and privacy...

link.springer.com

“Over 200 municipalities and 18 states have nondiscrimination laws protecting transgender people’s access to facilities consistent with the gender they live every day,” according to the coalition. "None of those jurisdictions have [sic] seen a rise in sexual violence or other public safety issues due to nondiscrimination laws. Assaulting another person in a restroom or changing room remains against the law in every single state.

Strangio also noted that allowing transgender people to use the bathroom corresponding to their gender identity “doesn’t increase in any way public safety incidents.”

There are two central falsehoods to the legislators’ reasoning, Strangio said. One is "that transgender people aren’t real and [are] inherently dangerous.” The second falsehood is that without HB2, "non-transgender people will take advantage" of the situation -- for example, a man could dress up as a woman to enter a woman's bathroom.

“All this does is to heighten gender policing of everyone by law enforcement, and individual people who do not conform to gender norms are targeted," Strangio said.

Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence Organizations Debunk 'Bathroom Predator Myth'

The myth does more harm than good, transgender advocates say.

abcnews.go.com

"Based on our review of sexual assault complaints in Atlanta, Dallas, Miami Beach, Miami Gardens and Tucson, before and after an official amendment to the human rights ordinance in that locality, we did not find evidence of sexual assaults taking place in which men, under the guise of being women or transgender, entered women’s bathrooms to commit a sexual assault or otherwise victimize women.
Our overall findings are consistent with the research literature on sexual assault, which indicates that victims of sexual assault are primarily female (over 90 percent) and that, in 8 of 10 cases, the assault is not perpetrated by a stranger but rather by a person known to the victim, such as an acquaintance or intimate partner.5"

https://www.policinginstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/PF_Research-Brief_JULY-2017-FINAL-1.pdf

"But we should NOT make all women less secure in order to help the tiny number of trans women you're discussing."

In summary, that does not appear to be the case.

 

[icehorse]

Let's try looking at something more on point:

two points (off the top of my head):

- the coalitions have agendas
- there is no mention of longitudinal studies

Both of these concerns are echoed frequently when considering the "solutions" proposed by trans activists.

==

Additionally, these studies do not consider "dread". And whether you like it or not, mitigating reasonable dread is an important criteria.

 

[metis]

Have you ever considered trying to understand the legitimate fears women have of being assaulted by men?

Anyone who knows me would you that I'm concerned about all women and all men who may be assaulted, whether it be physically or verbally, but I also concerned about gender bigotry that attacks the LGBQ community physically or verbally. Any male or female could walk into a women's restroom and assault someone within. Your repeated accusations I find repulsive and demeaning. So, I've made my point and you've made yours, so I'll move on.

 

[SkepticThinker]

two points (off the top of my head):

- the coalitions have agendas
- there is no mention of longitudinal studies

Both of these concerns are echoed frequently when considering the "solutions" proposed by trans activists.

==

So the two points, off the top of your head, for the data directly related to your claim, which shows your claim to be in error, are that you're going to ignore it all.

Meanwhile, you're citing an article where the main concern is lack of in-home washrooms in India, about Indian women defecating in public rural areas (aka "outdoors") maybe having an increased risk of being assaulted.

Okey dokey then. I don't think I'll be able to get through to you, if that's what I'm dealing with.

Additionally, these studies do not consider "dread". And whether you like it or not, mitigating reasonable dread is an important criteria.

I think the studies demonstrate that the "dread" is way overinflated and probably not warranted. Like I said a few pages back.




"Several states and major cities have supported transgender people’s bathroom access for years. There are more than a dozen states and several cities that have non-discrimination laws that protect gender identity in public accommodations, which is a legalistic way of saying transgender people can use whatever bathrooms they want in public. This is the kind of affirmation that started the whole controversy in North Carolina. Charlotte passed such protections earlier this year, state lawmakers said there would be terrible effects and passed a countermeasure, HB2, that eliminated Charlotte’s protections and banned other cities from passing anything similar.

Fears about male predators have not been borne out in those places. New York City has banned discrimination based on gender identity for more than a decade. California has affirmed the rights of K-12 students to use the bathrooms and locker rooms that align with their gender identity for years. Advocates say that while there are some past examples of heterosexual men dressing up like women to gain access to women’s spaces, there’s no record of that behavior increasing when there’s an LGBT non-discrimination law on the books. “We have so many places that do prohibit discrimination where this has never come up,” says the Equality Federation’s Rebecca Isaacs. “This is a red herring.

Police and school officials say they haven’t seen it either. Media Matters, a liberal media watchdog, has asked state leaders, law enforcement and school officials in places with these protections whether they’ve seen any increase in sexual assault or rape after passing these laws, and they have repeatedly said that they have not. “We have not seen that,” a Des Moines police department spokesman told the outlet in 2014. “I doubt that’s gonna encourage the behavior. If the behavior’s there, [sexual predators are] gonna behave as they’re gonna behave no matter what the laws are.”

Why LGBT Advocates Say Bathroom 'Predators' Are Red Herring

"It’s so hard to fight this because it’s such nonsense."

time.com

 

[fantome profane]

But we should NOT make all women less secure

And you still have not substantiated this idea that transgender women make anyone less secure in anyway.

 

[icehorse]

And you still have not substantiated this idea that transgender women make anyone less secure in anyway.

not a claim i've ever made, sigh.

 

[icehorse]

I think the studies demonstrate that the "dread" is way overinflated and probably not warranted. Like I said a few pages back.

So you still don't have longitudinal studies.

As for dread, how do you factor that into well being?

I'm going to zoom out for a minute, some things are not reducible to sound bites:

Why don't we grab random, healthy individuals and harvest their organs? One life could save many, after all.

We don't do this because we are a utilitarian society and we understand that imposing dread on everyone hurts our overall well being.

I don't think we can so easily minimize the significance of dread in society. Certainly when we have serious conversations about racism, we (tacitly or not), agree that dread must be considered.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Transgender women aren't part of that category. They are a whole different category. Conflating the two constantly doesn't make it so

I don't think after all these pages, all these threads, you'll make any progress on that one.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So you still don't have longitudinal studies.

As for dread, how do you factor that into well being?

I'm going to zoom out for a minute, some things are not reducible to sound bites:

Why don't we grab random, healthy individuals and harvest their organs? One life could save many, after all.

We don't do this because we are a utilitarian society and we understand that imposing dread on everyone hurts our overall well being.

I don't think we can so easily minimize the significance of dread in society. Certainly when we have serious conversations about racism, we (tacitly or not), agree that dread must be considered.

What you're doing is ignoring all the data presented to you in favour of your baseless claims about "dread."
I think I've shown that this "dread" you constantly speak of is unwarranted and overhyped.

 

[icehorse]

What you're doing is ignoring all the data presented to you in favour of your baseless claims about "dread."
I think I've shown that this "dread" you constantly speak of is unwarranted and overhyped.

You STILL have not provided long term studies, so your data is incomplete at best.

As for minimizing dread, society has demonstrated for decades now that it is a significant aspect of well being.

I really don't know how else to say this, but your minimizing the downsides of increasing dread for hundreds of millions of women is just plain misogynistic. I don't care who you are, this is a callous, selfish perspective.

 

[fantome profane]

not a claim i've ever made, sigh.

Allowing transgender women to use public facilities that conform to their gender does not make cis women less secure.

Not allowing transgender women to use public facilities that conform to their gender does put transgender women in serious danger.

From a utilitarian perspective the answer is obvious.

 

[icehorse]

Allowing transgender women to use public facilities that conform to their gender does not make cis women less secure.

The only evidence of that is from agenda-driven agencies who do not have long term data. And, fwiw, your claim defies common sense. Another way of stating your claim is that male predators will - for reasons not yet explained - fail to take advantage of this new norm. And finally, you are ignoring the concern about dread...

Not allowing transgender women to use public facilities that conform to their gender does put transgender women in serious danger.

Good thing there are more than two solutions!

 

[fantome profane]

Another way of stating your claim is that male predators will - for reasons not yet explained - fail to take advantage of this new norm.

Male predators will do what male predators do. Their is no evidence, nor any logical reason to think that they will modify their behaviour either way based on where transgender women are allowed to pee.

This is nothing but fear mongering, and this is going to get people killed.

And what you call a "new norm" is not in anyway "new". Transgender people have existed for as long as there has been people. And for as long as there has been public accommodations transgender people have used the facilities that conform to their gender. This is not "new". What is new is a wave of bigoted fear mongering for political reasons.

 

[icehorse]

Male predators will do what male predators do. Their is no evidence, nor any logical reason to think that they will modify their behaviour either way based on where transgender women are allowed to pee.

And several months later you continue to ignore the idea of normalization.

And what you call a "new norm" is not in anyway "new". Transgender people have existed. And for as long as there has been public accommodations transgender people have used the facilities that conform to their gender. This is not "new". What is new is a wave of bigoted fear mongering for political reasons.

What's new is gender ****. What's new is a 2000% increase in people identifying as trans.

What's amusing is that you cannot seem to be able to make an argument without relying on some lame identity politics.

 

[Revoltingest]

What you're doing is ignoring all the data presented to you in favour of your baseless claims about "dread."
I think I've shown that this "dread" you constantly speak of is unwarranted and overhyped.

Now you're not just a misogynist,
you're a callous selfish misogynist.
I wonder what I am?

 

[fantome profane]

And several months later you continue to ignore the idea of normalization.

I am not ignoring it. I am calling it out for what it is. This idea is nothing more than fear mongering. No evidence or logical reason to think it will in anyway make cis women less secure.

 

[icehorse]

I am not ignoring it. I am calling it out for what it is. This idea is nothing more than fear mongering. No evidence or logical reason to think it will in anyway make cis women less secure.

Unless you factor in common sense and the feelings of women.