For people who think bathrooms should be segregated by birth sex, are passing trans men entitled to use the women's bathroom?

submitted by [deleted] from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]JoeyJoeJoe 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (69 children)

If only we had a system for using toilets that preserved the maximum amount of privacy, safety and dignity for the most amount of people practically possible.

Oh wait, we had that, and the TRA are waging war on it.

[–]inkling 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (68 children)

Switch out "the most amount of people practically possible" for "cis" or "able bodied" or "ethnic majority" and read your comment again.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 12 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

Why would anyone do that when all people, able bodied or disabled, and of any race/ethnicity, have a sex?

[–]inkling 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

I'm saying that the solution that works for the most people isn't always the most morally correct, not just in regards to sex segregation.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Then that’s what you should have said instead of making a faulty (and ironically ableist and racist) analogy, you also would have needed to back up why not sacrificing sex based spaces for the sake of trans people is not the most morally correct.

This is specifically and only about sex segregation. So whatever other context where what works for the most isn’t the most moral choice is detracting from the subject at hand.

[–]inkling 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

you also would have needed to back up why not sacrificing sex based spaces for the sake of trans people is not the most morally correct

I don't think there is any evidence that allowing trans people to use the spaces that align with their gender identity causes those spaces to be unsafe for others. I think there is actually evidence of the opposite https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/no-link-between-trans-inclusive-policies-bathroom-safety-study-finds-n911106

Whereas there is evidence that not allowing trans people to use spaces that align with their gender identity has bad consequences for trans people https://www.newsweek.com/transgender-bathroom-law-study-suicide-454185

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29159308/

That is what makes it more morally correct to me.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

So… if we don’t let trans people use the bathroom they choose, they’re gonna kill themselves?

So just mass emotional manipulation?

Not respecting boundaries of others, not accepting basic biology, but… mass emotional manipulation… that’s what sounds morally sound to you?

This isn’t really convincing to me, it just kind of seems like you’ve shown me that trans people are severely mentally unstable and need more thorough mental health assistance, rather than a free pass to invade other people’s spaces and force those other people to feel uncomfortable in spaces actually intended for them. The public should have nothing to do with the mental health treatment for trans people. We are not qualified to be responsible for trans people’s mental health. Trans people are responsible for their own mental health. If they can’t handle using the proper bathroom, that’s a huge red flag that there’s something not being dealt with mentally, imo.

The thing is- I used to not care about bathrooms, but there’s no stopping at bathrooms. We accepted that we were going to share bathrooms- and everything else was taken. And we can’t say no to anything. Because every time someone speaks up, we just get told it’s what’s best for trans people like trans people are all that’s supposed to matter.

What’s most morally correct is not disrupting the rights of others (which-TM don’t really do, that’s more a TW thing imo), not forcing yourself on others (or their sports, spaces, groups etc). Id say it’s also morally correct to respect sex over gender/identity, since sex is actually provable, unchanging, and real.

I do think when it comes to transmen it’s different, because they are putting themselves in a male environment, not a female one. I don’t think there’s the issue of which vulnerable group deserves to actually be protected because males are not generally considered a vulnerable group. I think there’s a huge difference between a male disrupting a female space and a female entering a male space.

The most morally correct thing is to give trans people their own spaces if they absolutely cannot use the proper (sex based) spaces.

[–]inkling 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Regardless of whether you care if trans people kill themselves or not, it seems obvious to me that if there is a proven bad outcome for trans people without gender affirming policies and no evidence for a bad outcome for cis people with gender affirming policies, gender affirming policies should be preferable.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

So… Everyone else sacrificing their needs, rights and comfort for trans people is the most morally correct thing.

Because you personally think so.

Got it.

I understand the studies- the most morally correct thing is still to attempt to make the most people possible Feel safe, comfortable and as if they have equal rights. (And to make sure that trans people are given whatever mental health assistance they may need to cope with the fact of their biology and the fact that other people matter and have rights)

Third spaces for trans people is how you do that. That’s the most fair. That’s the most correct. The world doesn’t revolve around trans people.

Do you think it’s morally correct to force the rest of the population to be responsible for your mental health?

[–]inkling 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Because you personally think so.

No, because the evidence says so

[–]adungitit 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (58 children)

So, you're saying that racial segregation and a lack of disabled spaces actually kept the maximum amount of people safe? Mind trying to expand on your weird racist logic?

[–]inkling 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (57 children)

No I am not, I'm saying that the majority perceived it that way.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (55 children)

Sure people were really out there freaking out over the dangers ramps and pedestrian lights that make sounds we’re gonna have on all the people who can walk and see. 🙄

[–]inkling 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (54 children)

Some people believed that disability accomodations weren't necessary because the current system benefitted the maximum number of people. I don't know why you think that people had to be afraid of disability accomodations in order for it to be comparable as that wasn't why I was comparing the two in the first place.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (53 children)

Because the issue is about safety, or rather fears for safety. It’s got nothing to do with some supposed moral issue.

Besides, absolutely nothing for transgender people benefits a majority. It’s absurd to compare the wants of a small group to the actual needs of people with disabilities.

[–]adungitit 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

absolutely nothing for transgender people benefits a majority. It’s absurd to compare the wants of a small group to the actual needs of people with disabilities

This is a flawed argument. It's not about what benefits a majority, it is about whether someone's demands are necessary and whether they infringe on other people's rights. Minorities should not have to prove that their rights benefit the majority in order for people to give a shit about accommodating them, but they also cannot make demands that will violate other people's rights and safety. i.e. gay people, despite being a minority, can make demands for equality, pedophiles cannot. And if gay people started demanding they be let into female spaces freely because straight men bully them, or demanded that biology be rewritten to claim that two men can reproduce in order to make gay people feel more "normal", that would be a different story.

[–]inkling 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (51 children)

The original comment that I replied to implied that whats good for the majority is always the best system which is the main thing I was responding to. Someone else asked if I thought racial segregation and systems that cater to able bodied people kept the most amount of people safe and I said some people perceive it that way. You interpretted that to mean that I thought that people were afraid of disability accomodations which is not what I meant by some people believe that systems that cater to able bodied people keep the most amount of people safe so anything else isn't necessary if most people are safe anyway. That doesn't mean I think that people were afraid of disability accomodations, only that I think people thought they were unnecessary. Understand?

Besides, absolutely nothing for transgender people benefits a majority.

I didn't say it did? I said the opposite.

(My comment doesn't make any sense now that you've edited yours so I'm pasting your original comment for context)

Because you said it was about safety, or rather fears for safety. Besides, absolutely nothing for transgender people benefits a majority. It’s absurd to compare the wants of a small group to the actual needs of people with disabilities.

I disagree morality has nothing to do with it, if accomodating someone's gender has no proven risk and not accomodating their gender has a proven risk. Thats clearly a morality issue to me.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (50 children)

You need to prove there’s no risk which is a tall order considering tw have already harmed women in women’s spaces.

What’s good for the majority works perfectly fine in sexed spaces. The morally correct option would not be taking those away, it would be to provide an extra space for trans people without disrupting women’s safety.

Threats of suicide are not much defense when stacked up against rapists. Suicide can be prevented by putting the person in appropriate psychiatric care. This is a more appropriate response than giving them the thing they threaten suicide over. The emotional manipulation of suicide threats to control others behaviour is an utter moral failure so not sure how there’s moral superiority in caving to manipulative men.

Women cannot be as protected from men without our spaces. Taking that away is not moral, even when manipulators try to say it is.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (36 children)

Threats of suicide are not much defense when stacked up against rapists. Suicide can be prevented by putting the person in appropriate psychiatric care. This is a more appropriate response than giving them the thing they threaten suicide over.

Yes. This. All of this.

[–]inkling 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/no-link-between-trans-inclusive-policies-bathroom-safety-study-finds-n911106

http://jaapl.org/content/46/2/232#sec-8

[–]adungitit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Except...they didn't? These things were not put in place for the safety of the majority, and they certainly weren't put in place because the vulnerable groups asked for said protections. Sooo...what's the point of lying that this was "perceived" in a way it wasn't? Except because you know your entire argument is bullshit?

Let me spell this out to you, and I'll try to make it simple enough that even a trans rights activist will be able to understand it: Women have been preyed on and endangered by men for all of history, to the point of their freedoms, safety and privacy being severely violated this fact. That is why they needed and demanded protections in the form of female spaces, so they could function normally in the public sphere. This was not the case for racial segregation that was imposed onto black people against their will and due to ideas of white supremacy, nor for the lack of disabled spaces resulting from neglect and lack of visibility of disabled people's needs.

Now, using your ass-backwards logic, you could argue that having to have disabled parking spaces and ramps is no different from stoning a woman for being a witch, since both laws are in place because "the majority perceives it that way". Gosh, it's almost like there's more to this whole thing than just "what the majority says".