Hello, Elliot Page
- Thread starter ObsidianJones
- Start date
Then why are you bringing trans-women into this, as if trans-women getting access to women's bathrooms is the key to unlocking some sort of treasure trove of victims for perverts? Again, do janitors inspire the same level of paranoia?
You say it's no condemnation of trans people, yet this topic is always presented as 'what if a trans-woman is a weirdo up to no good'. It's even being brought up right here; on a thread that's all about Elliot Page coming out. What does he or his coming out as trans have to do with preverts wanting to get into women's bathrooms?
I mean, walk me through me this scenario you fear so, invloving a fake trans-woman going into the bathroom... So a predator with a wig walks into a bathroom, occupied by 4 or 5 women, and they don't know any better than that this guy is a woman. And then what, he starts attacking them? I don't think him masquerading as a woman gives him a free pass. That will still be seen as assault, whether its a man or a woman. What else could he do; lure a little girl away from her mother? How would him pretending to be a strange woman this girl doesn't know help him in in that as opposed to being a strange man? And if we switch that last scenario to the men's bathroom, what to stop a trans-man, or any cis-man from luring a little boy away from his partents?
People like this who are up to no good have much easier means at their disposal than pretending to be trans so they can get in the bathroom. You already mentioned one yourself. Some even have other women working for them to lure in victims. Other cis-women are in that regard a much greater threat to other cis-women than trans-women are. I can't tell you how many stories there have been of mothers offering up their own children to preverted boyfriends.
So by that logic, nobody should be allowed in any bathroom for fear of misconduct. It makes as much sense as specifically singling out trans-women.
I'm not here to suggest a solution, just honestly represent the issue. But if the solution does involve someone not using their preferred bathroom, that's hardly punishment. There is no shortage of places you're allowed to go, and that restriction is hardly a punishment. Like, I wish I could play disc golf today, but I work until after dusk, and the parks all close at dusk. The lack of light isn't a play limitation, I have flashlights and glow disks, the only thing stopping me is the posted park hours that end at dusk. Does me not getting to go out to the parks constitute punishment for working all day? No, it's a rule that's there for a reason, because people can get hurt or cause mischief without it. I understand that. I can't go in the women's restroom. That's not a punishment for being a man, that's not an insult to me as a man, it's a rule that's there for a reason. I can be restricted without it being persecution.
If janitors start walking into off-gendered bathrooms without warning to those inside or those who might follow in, then yes! If you happen to use the bathroom when a janitor shows up, they will announce their presence and leave the cart at the entrance as a "there's a janitor in here" warning. If a man walks into the occupied women's room without giving them a chance to vacate first, 100% yes people are going to be upset about it. Saying "oh, I'm the janitor" is not going to make it better.
This is silly and you know it. Try something less silly. A man puts on makeup and follows a young girl into a restroom. If she's alone, he assaults her and gets away with it. If there's women already in there, he claims to be trans and goes on his merry way. Then he washes off the makeup and avoids being identified later either way.
And if we could prevent them all, we would. Unfortunately, that's beyond the power of society to do, we can't monitor people to make sure they aren't hurting their children at home. We can, potentially, keep people with penises from having secluded access to women in public facilities. That's feasible. I understand it's less of a problem than other avenues of abuse, but we do our best in each situation and those other avenues are a hell of a lot harder to deal with.
No, he's just a stalker creep who's obsessed with this woman, so due to the relaxed rules on bathrooms, he follows her in there, just as he follows her everywhere else. Then he takes a recording of her tinkle sounds and smells her farts.
Not every creep is violent and brazen. Some are mildly concerning. Others are borderline innocent. These lesser creeps are kept out by the sign.
Do you think it's worth it to give lesser creeps more opportunities?
Okay, but consider this: is saying you're a woman actually easier? You have to buy clothes and makeup for your disguise, and even then there's still the possibility that some conservative, middle-aged woman will still say there's no way you're allowed in this bathroom, versus just walking into the bathroom. Any other woman accidently see you? "Whoops, was looking at my phone and thought this was the men's room."
That you decline the address the arguments on their merits really says it all.
You're just claiming that the argument is fallacious. You've spent 0 words demonstrating how it's fallacious.
You just said "oh how dare you, you used an analogy about disc golf, I'm storming off in a huff!"
Because you can't address the actual arguments. Because you know you don't have a leg to stand on.
You're either feigning outrage so that you have an excuse to storm off in a huff, since you can't actually defend your arguments, or you don't know what analogies are and how they work. Which is it?
Tstorm is not saying "gender identity is like disc golf, hyuck!", and you know it. He's saying that restrictions aren't necessarily punishments. He can't play disc golf after work because the parks are closed. This isn't a punishment for working all day. There are good reasons why the park is closed at night, that have nothing to do with punishing people. That's his point, and you know it. It's easy to understand and not offensive to anyone.
I'm not, and nobody is, comparing gender identity to disc golf.
What's being compared is restrictions (bathrooms, parks being closed at night) and how they aren't punishments.
And you know it.
But you can't debate it.
And everyone can see it.
You forget, you're using old tactics. We know how to deal with them now: Call them out for what they are. Point out that the alternative is not understanding something that a child should be able to grasp. Then the other person either storms off again or doubles-down, but they never ever say anything reasonable, and that's how you can tell they're engaging in bad faith.
THAT is your less silly example? And how much make-up is he even using if it results in him being unidentifiable if he washes it off? Are we talking, like, kabuki levels?
Seriously dude, this is no less cartoony than the example I gave. How about you give me some examples of this brilliantly simple scheme actually put into practice, because if it's that easy you'd think women's bathrooms would be a hive of molestation. You'd think men would've dressed up and invaded women's bathrooms long before the whole trans topic was even in the public's consience. It's not that hard you know, for a man to dress up as a woman as closely as he can, enter a women's bathroom, and turn away their face to keep up the appearance. No need for magic, trans password at all.
But then you're comparing being trans and needing to go to the bathroom with not being able to play a game because the park is closed, so there's really very little left to argue with you.
Actually, I think a problem is that substantial numbers of sane people can't tell the difference between someone's hobby and identity. That's the sort of reason why gay conversion "therapy" is still a thing.
Or perhaps it might more be that the only identity that they understand and trust is the one they have: if anyone deviates from that, there's something wrong with them.
Still waiting for an answer to this question:
"Not every creep is violent and brazen. Some are mildly concerning. Others are borderline innocent. These lesser creeps are kept out by the sign.
Do you think it's worth it to give lesser creeps more opportunities?"
In an ideal world. Alas, we don't live in an ideal world. We live in one in which people are killed for no other reason than trying to be themselves. So, yes, in a non-ideal world in which that happens, identity and validating identity is existentially important.
And exactly how many of those aspects make you liable to be murdered by people dislike that aspect, and/or believe that aspect makes you less of a human being or deserving of murder?
I don't think it's your prerogative to decide that for them.
You mean the same media I've complained about for ten pages as being inherently transphobic, by way of erasure and making trans identity a for-profit circus? Yeah, you're not getting footing there with me.
Yaniv ain't a celebrity, they don't give a shit. Let's not forget we're three years out from a major national, entertainment industry-wide, scandal in which the media played a key role covering up sexual abuses by celebrities, up to and including celebrity molesters. That is, until throwing predators under the bus as a form of twisted damage control became more profitable than covering their asses.
You mean like what you're doing right now, as opposed to making a distinction between people like Yaniv and trans people trying to live their lives?
Do you think that, if everyone thought of Yaniv as a man, that he could have gotten away with this?
This question is also open to anyone else who makes the "but men can just barge into women's restrooms anyway" argument.
If you're all being consistent in your positions, the answer should be "yes, he could have done this just as easily as if he were a man". Are you willing to say that?
Last edited:
Not easier, no, but if nobody wants to prosecute you, it's quite a bit safer.
If an analogy is off limits, you're not interested in the point. The principle at play is that I'm not being restricted because of who I am or what it is I want to do. I'm being restricted because of what totally unrelated people might do. And that's fine. That was the point of the analogy.
Like, would you prefer to compare to the Bill of Rights? I can't really own a machine gun, not because I'm personally a criminal, but because of what criminals would do with that opportunity.
Like this one?: https://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-city/2011/10/cross-dressing_sex_predator_se.html
"ugh, how dare you compare trans rights with a deadly and murderous machine gun! I'm so offended I'm storming off in a huff!"
There's no way to play their game and win. No analogy will ever be acceptable.
Well, given that society is turning against the idea of excluding and punishing trans people for just being trans new reasons to do that must be used instead.
