3 ms·

The desire there was to provide women and boys with safe spaces more than to discriminate against anyone. It's a protective instinct, not an oppressive one. I'

The desire there was to provide women and boys with safe spaces more than to discriminate against anyone. It's a protective instinct, not an oppressive one. I'm not saying women are right to think all men are potential rapists or something, but there used to be a system in place to help with that issue. Now, what? I guess women need to hang outside the restroom until it seems safe? Or always go in groups? Maybe we'll see more single-person restrooms going forward. Anyway, point being, it's easy and reductionist to boil complex human emotions down to bigotry. I think the "classic bathroom rules" had some good points to them that we haven't replaced.

foldr 10y ago
>The desire there was to provide women and boys with safe spaces more than to discriminate against anyone. But that doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. How would preventing transpeople from using the bathrooms that align with their gender identity make anyone safer? Is there a single recorded incident of a cis woman being raped by a transwoman in a bathroom? Also, the effect on boys is that they'll be sharing bathrooms with transwomen instead of with transmen. From the bigot's point of view, that ought to make boys less safe (as they think that transwomen are "really" men and transmen "really" women, so that transwomen are more likely to be rapists). It's telling that the supposed justification in terms of safety isn't even internally consistent.
- humanrebar 10y ago
  You misunderstand. The issue isn't trans people who are good citizens. It's bad actors that have a new loophole. The mechanism ("no men in the ladies room") has been removed, so there's no longer a mechanism for the assistant manager of a Target to help his female customers relax and have a safe space to take care of things. That safety may now only provided after some sort of leering, proposal, or assault has already taken place. Also, for the record, I don't think much of this makes sense. If we were objectively worried about safety, we would focus on driving less and slower and locking up swimming pools. Stranger danger is largely overblown. That being said, I've seen particular things where particular men (almost always men) harass particular women (almost always women) and in most cases there's not much the victim can do about it. This is more about concerns along those lines.
  - foldr 10y ago
    It's not clear to me any more what point you're trying to make. You seem to acknowledge that there isn't actually any safety issue with allowing transwomen to use the women's bathroom.
    - humanrebar 10y ago
      > They seem to have pretty strong opinions on exactly which groups of people should be allowed to use which bathrooms. I was saying all strong opinions there come from wanting to protect women, not from a desire to get into other peoples' bathroom preferences.
      - foldr 10y ago
        Everyone professes to have good intentions, but the conservatives in question have a terrible record on "protecting women" in general.

foldr 10y ago

>The desire there was to provide women and boys with safe spaces more than to discriminate against anyone. But that doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. How would preventing transpeople from using the bathrooms that align with their gender identity make anyone safer? Is there a single recorded incident of a cis woman being raped by a transwoman in a bathroom? Also, the effect on boys is that they'll be sharing bathrooms with transwomen instead of with transmen. From the bigot's point of view, that ought to make boys less safe (as they think that transwomen are "really" men and transmen "really" women, so that transwomen are more likely to be rapists). It's telling that the supposed justification in terms of safety isn't even internally consistent.

humanrebar 10y ago
You misunderstand. The issue isn't trans people who are good citizens. It's bad actors that have a new loophole. The mechanism ("no men in the ladies room") has been removed, so there's no longer a mechanism for the assistant manager of a Target to help his female customers relax and have a safe space to take care of things. That safety may now only provided after some sort of leering, proposal, or assault has already taken place. Also, for the record, I don't think much of this makes sense. If we were objectively worried about safety, we would focus on driving less and slower and locking up swimming pools. Stranger danger is largely overblown. That being said, I've seen particular things where particular men (almost always men) harass particular women (almost always women) and in most cases there's not much the victim can do about it. This is more about concerns along those lines.
- foldr 10y ago
  It's not clear to me any more what point you're trying to make. You seem to acknowledge that there isn't actually any safety issue with allowing transwomen to use the women's bathroom.
  - humanrebar 10y ago
    > They seem to have pretty strong opinions on exactly which groups of people should be allowed to use which bathrooms. I was saying all strong opinions there come from wanting to protect women, not from a desire to get into other peoples' bathroom preferences.
    - foldr 10y ago
      Everyone professes to have good intentions, but the conservatives in question have a terrible record on "protecting women" in general.