Gender Neutral Bathrooms converted back

[icehorse]

Hey, @icehorse, if trans-women should use the men's
instead of women's lavatory, should transmen be required
to use the women's room?

Not a solution I've ever proposed.

Zooming out, in general when a proposal is being discussed, there is no assumption that a new proposal needs to accompany criticism of the current proposal, correct?

 

[Orbit]

How many cases would you like to see? How many would be too many for you?


your mind reading skills remain poor.

As I've been discussing in my last few posts, I see a large number of fallacy arguments from my opponents in these threads. I would challenge you to try to avoid using fallacies, it could be revealing.

Again, your mind is so closed that you don't even respond to the content I posted, which shows the fact that there are good studies that contradict you.

All you can do is issue insults. How is posting peer-reviewed research a fallacy? This is just more of your bad-faith nonsense.

 

[JustGeorge]

Your personal anecdotes are of little comfort to the hundreds of millions of women who have been assaulted by men.

I've been assaulted by men. My stories didn't comfort me, either.

Learning not to live in fear did, though.

Seems like classic "what-about-ism" to me, correct?

Whatever you say!

 

[Revoltingest]

Not a solution I've ever proposed.

Zooming out, in general when a proposal is being discussed, there is no assumption that a new proposal needs to accompany criticism of the current proposal, correct?

Correct.
But the question is useful to understand your views.
This is better than just assuming.

 

[icehorse]

Again, your mind is so closed that you don't even respond to the content I posted, which shows the fact that there are good studies that contradict you.

It's like you don't read my posts. I read the study you posted. My mind is not closed, I just think that for such important matters we ought to see meta-studies. Can you address that point?

All you can do is issue insults

Well there is a massive mischaracterization!

How is posting peer-reviewed research a fallacy?

It's not, never said it was.

This is just more of your bad-faith nonsense.

wow, just wow!

 

[Revoltingest]

If there's a concern that men will assault women
if they're in the same lavatory, which lavatory should
these trans-women (former males) use?
I suspect there's a risk of men who assault women
mistaking these women for women.
(Dang, I'm getting confused with my terms here.)

 

[icehorse]

Learning not to live in fear did, though.

Not biologically possible. Your conscious mind is in charge of very little. Your unconscious brain is in charge of most things, and "fear" is above the pay grade of your mind.

 

[icehorse]

If there's a concern that men will assault women
if they're in the same lavatory, which lavatory should
these trans-women (former males) use?
I suspect there's a risk of men who assault women
mistaking these women for women.
(Dang, I'm getting confused with my terms here.)

All good points.

 

[Orbit]

It's like you don't read my posts. I read the study you posted. My mind is not closed, I just think that for such important matters we ought to see meta-studies. Can you address that point?


Well there is a massive mischaracterization!


It's not, never said it was.

wow, just wow!

Yeah, I agree: wow. To refuse to concede that the three studies I have posted contradict you completely "because there aren't meta-studies" is absolutely absurd. First, the issue is too recent to have meta-studies. Second, meta-studies are not necessary to see the trend in the research. It's just poor epistemology.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I think you have a typo, but I'm sure I understand what you meant. I don't think it's fair to call that an "ideology" unless you're saying my ideology is to trust science. In which case, guilty as charged

Except that you have explicitly attributed the medical consensus on gender identities and treatment of certain cases of gender dysphoria to a variety of conspiracy theories in previous threads, including "activists," supposed political pressure, and supposed compromise of medical evidence for the purpose of making profit.

Your position doesn't trust science; it flies in its face.

Ok seriously, I have been accused of that countless times and I have consistently said that I'm making no such claim.

Yet you have been aggressively dismissing posts in this thread where people, including women, have expressed having no worries about trans women's usage of women's restrooms.

I'm always open to good arguments.

"Good arguments" don't have to agree with you. I haven't seen you acknowledge any argument against your positions as valid. You keep incessantly interrogating people and sometimes misrepresenting their views unless they agree with you, including by calling their views "misogynistic" and "virtue-signaling."

That's not an attempt to understand or discuss; it's an attempt to shove a set of views down others' throats and guilt them into silence if they don't agree.

But these are serious topics, so I'm suspicious of "but i think-ism" arguments. In a recent thread I had a very good discussion / debate with a newer poster. That discussion gives me hope that good debates are possible here. But having been the target of a constant barrage of fallacy arguments, it's natural for me to draw some conclusions. I think it's more than plausible that a lot of virtue signaling is going on, otherwise people would be able to state their case without resorting to fallacies.

Given what I have seen of the way you address others' responses, I think you might want to consider that your own posts are a large part of the contribution to the "constant barrage of fallacy arguments."

And I haven't accused you of "virtue signaling" despite your repeated refrain of "concern for women" in your dismissal of posts that disagree with you.

What I've seen across numerous threads is a high frequency of fallacy arguments. Much higher than normal. I'm open to hearing why you think that might be?

Speaking of fallacies: This is a blatantly loaded question. You assumed that I would agree with your claim about a "high frequency of fallacy arguments" and then asked a question based on acceptance of that claim.

Why are there many fallacious arguments? Because some people aren't sufficiently acquainted with identifying fallacious logic and thinking patterns, and some let their biases and ideology cloud both.

... and of course, some people assume they're "rational" and "logical" even while dismissing evidence that goes against their positions and ideology.

 

[icehorse]

Yeah, I agree: wow. To refuse to concede that the three studies I have posted contradict you completely "because there aren't meta-studies" is absolutely absurd. First, the issue is too recent to have meta-studies. Second, meta-studies are not necessary to see the trend in the research. It's just poor epistemology.

wait what? it's either too early or it's not. you seem to want to eat your cake and have it too?

 

[JustGeorge]

Not biologically possible. Your conscious mind is in charge of very little. Your unconscious brain is in charge of most things, and "fear" is above the pay grade of your mind.

But yet I've done it. I won't clutter up this thread with stories of my life, however. We're here to talk about potties.

Can everyone conquer every fear? Perhaps not. But can, or should, we cater to everyone's last fear? Especially if some of these fears stem in hatred and misunderstanding? Absolutely not.

Single stall restrooms would be the safest way, and I feel that's obvious. However, few on the 'anti-trans' side of the toilet arguments support that idea, which leads me to believe that this is an emotional response, not a logical one.

 

[Orbit]

wait what? it's either too early or it's not. you seem to want to eat your cake and have it too?

What you said makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Debater Slayer]

But yet I've done it. I won't clutter up this thread with stories of my life, however. We're here to talk about potties.

Can everyone conquer every fear? Perhaps not. But can, or should, we cater to everyone's last fear? Especially if some of these fears stem in hatred and misunderstanding? Absolutely not.

Single stall restrooms would be the safest way, and I feel that's obvious. However, few on the 'anti-trans' side of the toilet arguments support that idea, which leads me to believe that this is an emotional response, not a logical one.

I do sympathize with some women's concerns about seeing biological males in women's restrooms and find said concerns understandable, since males as a group are indeed the largest source of violence against females. I don't think such a concern has to necessarily be rooted in anti-trans sentiment. However, what I disagree with is the idea that sympathizing with those concerns or finding them understandable necessitates exclusion of trans women from women's restrooms, especially when one considers that this logic would also force trans men to use women's restrooms despite looking like men.

It's not a simple issue, and scapegoating all trans women doesn't seem to me helpful to anyone.

 

[icehorse]

Except that you have explicitly attributed the medical consensus on gender identities to a variety of conspiracy theories in previous threads, including "activists," supposed political pressure, and supposed compromise of medical evidence for the purpose of making profit.

That's a substantial mischaracterization of my positions.

Yet you have been aggressively dismissing posts in this thread where people, including women, have expressed having no worries about trans women's usage of women's restrooms.

Again, not my point. And also, a handful of women on this board have disagreed with me. Many more women who I've spoken to in person agree with me. But none of that really matters. A poster's individual opinions, and my limited polling are both statistically insignificant.

"Good arguments" don't have to agree with you. I haven't seen you acknowledge any argument against your positions as valid.

Well you haven't been looking. Not to say you need to, but since you made the claim...

That's not an attempt to understand or discuss; it's an attempt to shove a set of views down others' throats and guilt them into silence if they don't.

Pot, meet kettle! On these topics, I am consistently dog-piled. The evidence is there to see.

Speaking of fallacies: This is a blatantly loaded question. You assumed that I would agree with your claim about a "high frequency of fallacy arguments" and then asked a question based on acceptance of that claim.

I made no such assumption. I know full well you won't spend time researching my claim, and I don't expect you will. That said, you choose to steelman my claim. You won't, but you could. I have to tell you, it's grueling to hold a contrarian stance on these topics.

 

[Little Dragon]

What is a urinal used for?

Urinating in typically.

 

[Little Dragon]

It's not a simple issue, and scapegoating all trans women doesn't seem to me helpful to anyone.

Too right.

 

[Little Dragon]

Pot, meet kettle! On these topics, I am consistently dog-piled.

Ah but this is a debate forum. Not the public sphere.

 

[Callisto]

Think what you want of me and my opinion, but I find the idea that we must protect women(the delicate little flowers they are) in the restroom to be misogynistic to some degree. We don't make the same fuss about seeing the men's room is safe from violent offenders.

For good reason. The vast majority of women and trans men don't pose a threat to biological males. Women are given cause to have same-sex spaces and it's why society has sex-segregated spaces rather than gender-identifying segregation.

According to RAINN (Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network), which is the nation's largest anti-sexual violence organization and operates the National Sexual Assault Hotline:

• 1 out of every 6 American women has been the victim of an attempted or completed rape in her lifetime (14.8% completed, 2.8% attempted). Whereas about 3% of American men—or 1 in 33—have experienced an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime.

And per the Bureau of Judicial Statistics:

The most frightening form of rape, an assault by a total stranger, was the most common. More than 75 percent of all rapes involved one victim and one offender, and most offenders were unarmed. Most victims offered some form of resistance. The most common responses to the situation were trying to get help; resisting physically; to threatening, arguing, or reasoning with the offender; or resisting without force.​

The CDC reports similar numbers and notes,

Over half of women and almost 1 in 3 men have experienced sexual violence involving physical contact during their lifetimes. One in 4 women and about 1 in 26 men have experienced completed or attempted rape. Additionally, 1 in 3 women and about 1 in 9 men experienced sexual harassment in a public place.​

It's common in these discussions for gynophobic arguments to be dismissive of women's needs and concerns, but they are real and ever present nonetheless. Instead of waving off the matter, the issue at hand is what to do to address the needs and safety of biological females if same-sex spaces are to be phased out?

Predators are opportunists and that will influence current statistics, and not for the better. Just like any other group, biological women have real world concerns based in real world needs due to real world threats. So perhaps the conversation should shift, in part, on what to do for this group while addressing the wants of another group instead of debaters writing it off as nothing more than unfounded alarmism, hyperbole, or political maneuvering.

 

[icehorse]

Ah but this is a debate forum. Not the public sphere.

Agreed, dog-piling is to be expected. I just think it's rich for the dog-pilers to whine