Hello, Elliot Page

[tstorm823]

No it's not. Like I said, this isn't Lethal Weapon where you can shout "I'm trans!" and the police just snap their fingers and go "aw shucks, we'll get ya next time.", this is real life. Any lawyer worth his paycheck would rip it apart (lack of doctor/therapist notes, no hormonal treatments, or surgeries, etc), and you would have to be insane if you thought they would not be able to find a jury that would convict them (the furor around hypothetical bathroom attacks alone should tell you that).

I think you've lost track of the argument. Is this your description of what happens when a trans-woman goes into the women's room?

 

[Gordon_4]

So, you would rather actually break the law than run a tiny risk of upsetting people?

And no, there's no law against you using a women's bathroom if it has facilities you need. Anyone who tried to evict you would be opening themselves up for a lawsuit.



Again, why?

Your daughter has every right to be in a women's toilet, especially if the alternative is being surrounded by men (who as we've established are inherently bad and dangerous). Her safety and comfort are as important as those of any other user of the toilet. In fact, she is exactly the kind of person we're supposed to be trying to protect here.

What this says to me is that you prioritize the needs, and in particular the anxieties, of some people over others, even when there's no clear legal basis to do so and even when it actually contradicts the law.



It is an argument though.

You may not think it's a good argument, and that's fine, but people are allowed to be sceptical of your motivations. The fact that you're more worried about some hypothetical situation where men pretend to be trans to gain access to women's bathrooms, which is actually completely unnecessary and wouldn't provide very much, if any legal protection beyond what already exists, does not register as authentic if that's the only situation you've demonstrated any concern for victims of sexual assault.

I'm of course joking about making men pee in glass boxes, but there's a grain of truth in it. I personally do feel inherently less safe around men, I've been a victim of a lot of male violence and there's always going to be deeply wired part of my brain which associates men with threat. I think we all, consciously or subconsciously, recognize that men are dangerous, that the way they behave and act makes them a danger to others, and that there's something very wrong with men in our society. Not all men, of course, that was a joke, but enough men to make the threat very real. It is interesting to me to see you admit that men are a threat to women (and trans people, and GNC men), because previously you've resisted the idea that there's anything wrong with men as a class.

So let me phrase the joke as an argument. Why are you so concerned with punishing trans people for what is ultimately a problem with men? Would it not make more sense, instead, to focus on men, because ultimately the social problem we are talking about here is men.

No one is surrounded by men in a men’s bathroom when they’re in the locked cubicle which any child - boy or girl - is going to be directed by their parent in line with a standing unspoken agreement that’s been in place since at least the 1990s. Outside of that one scene in The Full Monty I’ve never known a female to use a standing urinal - pre-op Trans women being the only exception I can think of right now.

 

[Mister Mumbler]

I think you've lost track of the argument. Is this your description of what happens when a trans-woman goes into the women's room?

Not lost track, just misread. That is what happens when someone prosecutes the pervert pretending to be trans (I've also just realized it's a lot worse if you get caught, as it would obviously have been premeditated due to needing to buy the makeup and such). But again, how is it safer? It almost sounds like you think women are more accepting of creepy, pervy behavior if it comes from a woman.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Because I am not a woman.

And?

So, are gendered bathrooms and changing rooms discriminatory as they are now, just concerning cis men and women? Are you of the belief that a straight man should be able to walk into a female changing area, and just hang out there?

The answer to this one is very complicated, but I'm going to try and boil it down to a question. It's a rhetorical question, because I think I already know the answer, and the answer is revealing.

Do you think that gay and bisexual women should be able to go into a female changing area?

I mean, let's break it down. Firstly, in general, regardless of who you are you shouldn't be hanging out in a changing room. It's a functional space which you should use for its intended function. If you're not changing, you shouldn't be in a changing room because it's a place where people go to get changed and having people just hanging out there could be disruptive.

So, assuming anyone in a changing room is actually changing, what's the problem with men and women changing in the same room? Why is that such a terrible problem? If it's based on the assumption that men will derive sexual excitement for seeing women changing, why does that not apply to gay and bi women, who are just as capable of being thirsty perverts as any straight man.

Again, rhetorical question. Because the answer is obvious. It's because men, in particular, cannot be trusted. It's because women spend their entire lives learning (correctly) that they have to fear men, and not just the ever-present possibility of unwanted attention or sexual violence from men, but also the male gaze. Men, conversely, spend their entire lives learning that women's bodies exist for their pleasure, that being able to look at women without their consent is normal and that women have an obligation to protect themselves from the male gaze. Again, queer women can be giant perverts, but they also don't register to other women as threatening, because they also implicitly know the rules.

The problem is that trans people, and even to an extend GNC men, are also sexually objectified by men, often in ways that are far less acknowledged or comfortable for the men involved and thus, in addition to being gross and unpleasant, are also more likely to provoke open hostility.

The problematic assumption here is that AMAB trans people are men who are putting on a façade or pretence. That is sadly how most people, even people who think they are trans inclusive, implicitly think about trans people. If you think like that, then there is no difference between allowing AMAB trans people into women's changing rooms, and allowing men. But that is not the discrimination. The discrimination is not that women's changing rooms are better, and that everyone has a right to be there. The discrimination is that both cis women and trans people have a need to protect themselves from men, but only one of those needs is recognized or met.

Again, the problem is men.

Like I said, it would take a miracle.

True, but some of us cannot fully relinquish the idea that men are equal human beings and capable of the same capacity for goodness as others, if they are properly taught and nurtured.

The alternative is not pleasant to think about, and would necessitate some pretty unpleasant solutions.

Like the myths of hate-crime gangs roaming the streets, just waiting to jump any LGBT person they see, especially in bathrooms?

Violence against LGBT people is largely opportunistic and "defensive". That's why the gay panic defence exists, because heterosexual men in particular seem prone to experiencing the existence of queer people as an attack on their identity. The simple fact is, "offending" a man is both inevitable and dangerous. Almost every queer person I know has experienced the outcome at least once. I've personally experienced it many times.

 

[Houseman]

And?

That's the beginning and end of it. I don't want to go in a women's restroom because I am not a woman. The sign says "Women only past this point. Men, keep out" and I obey the sign. There's nothing else.

Do you think that gay and bisexual women should be able to go into a female changing area?

Yes. The sign does not say anything about sexual preference, but rather, sex.
That's why urinals are only present in Men's bathrooms. Female urinals, while rare are only found in female bathrooms. It is clear, from the design of restrooms that biological differences are accommodated for, and therefore, that is the intent.

Could women perv on other women? Could men perv on other men? Yes, but that is a risk that society has accepted (not that it was a conscious choice), and is willing to live with. The needs of the many over the needs of the very small few.

Again, rhetorical question. Because the answer is obvious, again. It's because men, in particular, cannot be trusted.

I would say that gendered bathrooms are not just for the protection of women, it's for the protection of society. Free and open promiscuity is bad for any society. It means widespread STDs, It means unwanted pregnancies, abandoned children or abortions. It means less cohesion of the family unit. Rape is below all of that on the ranked list of concerns.


But you didn't answer the question of whether or not it's "discrimination".
If restricting people from certain bathrooms is discrimination if they're trans, then restricting people from certain bathrooms if they aren't must also be considered discrimination if you're being consistent.

So is it, or isn't it?

 

[Terminal Blue]

The sign says "Women only past this point. Men, keep out" and I obey the sign.

That's an oddly specific sign.

What if the sign doesn't say that? What if it's just a stylized image of a person in a skirt? Does that mean you're only allowed to go in if you're wearing a skirt? How literal are these signs?

Yes. The sign does not say anything about sexual preference, but rather, sex.

Why though?

"Because that's the way it is" isn't an argument. There needs to be some rationality for why things are the way they are.

That's why urinals are only present in Men's bathrooms. Female urinals, while rare are only found in female bathrooms. It is clear, from the design of restrooms that biological differences are accommodated for, and therefore, that is the intent.

Right, but we were talking about changing rooms. You specifically changed the subject to changing rooms. Changing rooms and bathrooms have a very different purpose.

Having a dick does not mean you are required to use urinals. It's not a biological, anatomical truth that people with dicks have to pee in urinals. In fact, I think you would be very hard pressed to find trans people who are entirely comfortable using urinals, not least because, as we've just talked about, men's bathrooms are not safe places. Thus, the question remains. Why do you feel that people who don't want to use urinals have some biological need to use the bathroom with urinals in it?

Could women perv on other women? Could men perv on other men? Yes, but that is a risk that society has accepted (not that it was a conscious choice), and is willing to live with. The needs of the many over the needs of the very small few.

Okay, so why are you so concerned about the risk posed by an even smaller group of people?

Why are we so concerned about the hypothetical risk of trans people attacking women in toilets and changing rooms? Even if that were to happen, the victims are few. Impossibly few, potentially even non-existent. So why the moral panic?

I would say that gendered bathrooms are not just for the protection of women, it's for the protection of society. Free and open promiscuity is bad for any society. It means widespread STDs, It means unwanted pregnancies, abandoned children or abortions. It means less cohesion of the family unit. Rape is below all of that on the ranked list of concerns.

Okay, so ignoring the really insulting implications of the idea that rape is a minor concern next to family values nonsense, what does any of this have to do with bathrooms?

Is peeing a sexual act to you?

But you didn't answer the question of whether or not it's "discrimination".

No, in general not allowing men into women's changing rooms is not discrimination because most men do not have a pressing need for protection against other men. There may be cases, I think, where it is discriminatory. Again, the discrimination is visible when you compare the experiences of cis women and trans people, and the presumed right of the former to protection from men when that right is deliberately withheld from the latter.

 

[Elijin]

Whoops, Houseman let his inner prude slip out again.

 

[tstorm823]

It almost sounds like you think women are more accepting of creepy, pervy behavior if it comes from a woman.

They are. They should be. Women are more concerned about a strange man making eye contact with them than a strange woman actively sexualizing them. That's not an accusation of sexism, the man is a bigger threat.

 

[Houseman]

No, in general not allowing men into women's changing rooms is not discrimination

Well then there we go. If not allowing men in to women's changing rooms is not discrimination, then it shouldn't be discrimination to not allow trans people into the "wrong" bathroom either.

the discrimination is visible when you compare the experiences of cis women and trans people, and the presumed right of the former to protection from men when that right is deliberately withheld from the latter.

Won't opening up bathrooms/changing rooms remove this protection for everyone anyway? Then nobody has any protection from men, as men can use any area they please, and women are never safe anywhere, right?

Okay, so why are you so concerned about the risk posed by an even smaller group of people?

Why are we so concerned about the hypothetical risk of trans people attacking women in toilets and changing rooms? Even if that were to happen, the victims are few. Impossibly few, potentially even non-existent. So why the moral panic?

I'm not concerned with "trans people attacking women in toilets and changing rooms", I'm concerned with "men who take advantage of loopholes or relaxed rules to attack women in toilets and changing rooms". I think the potential harm caused by the former outweighs any potential benefit there could be.

 

[Silvanus]

SNIP

I'd really recommend not responding to Houseman on topics like this. The M.O. is to drag the topic into circles with leading questions, false politeness, etc, without having the slightest intention of thinking about the opponent's argument. The only way for the topic to move on is to just let it drop, & respond to those discussing in good faith instead.

 

[Houseman]

Silvanus is just mad because I proved him wrong once. I encourage you to make up your own mind.

 

[Silvanus]

See above: prime bait, just sitting there on the hook. It's easy to leave it if you try, & much more rewarding.

 

[Kae]

If you respond by shitposting mom, I mean Houseman gets irritated.

 

[muffinbottom]

Way to turn this thread about a transman coming out to one about whether transwomen are dangerous.
tots not transphobic
Such good faith
If folks don't like men being able to harass women in the bathroom with impunity don't continue to force women who are trans to use the same bathroom with men?

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Well rather than make a new thread and as there was a lot of speculation about it I figured I'd post this.

He's getting a divorce.

Juno star Elliot Page announces divorce from wife Emma Portner

The pair tied the knot in 2018.

metro.co.uk

 

[happyninja42]

Well rather than make a new thread and as there was a lot of speculation about it I figured I'd post this.

He's getting a divorce.

Juno star Elliot Page announces divorce from wife Emma Portner

The pair tied the knot in 2018.

metro.co.uk

So? I mean that happens to like 50% of marriages anyway.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

So? I mean that happens to like 50% of marriages anyway.

Hey people were asking what would happen as his wife was a lesbian so yeh this is what is happening now.

 

[happyninja42]

Hey people were asking what would happen as his wife was a lesbian so yeh this is what is happening now.

I doubt that's the only reason they are getting a divorce, though it probably is a factor. I know a poster on V.1 of escapist was in a similar situation. His wife came out as trans male, and he did say it was something of a hurdle for him, relationship wise.

 

[Kae]

I hate celebrity culture, just let people live their lives, it's not our business what happened, if someone scrutinized your life likee that I bet you'd find tha very distressing @Dwarvenhobble

 

[Xprimentyl]

I hate celebrity culture, just let people live their lives, it's not our business what happened, if someone scrutinized your life likee that I bet you'd find tha very distressing @Dwarvenhobble

A part of the cost of celebrity status is that the general public will feel free to speculate about the most intimate details of your life based simply on what makes the headlines because "knowing OF someone" and "KNOWING someone" become interchangeable when fame is involved, the offset being the absurd riches and, well, celebrity status that net quit a few benefits. In this case: "Ellen Paige Is A Lesbian!" "Ellen Paige Marries A Woman!" "Ellen Paige Comes Out As Elliot Page!" "Elliot Paige Getting Divorced From Wife!" See? All the details one needs to form a narrative, nevermind all the unknown moments of life lived between those distinct moments, right?