Can we talk about the equality act?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All of the arguments about sports are clearly fearmongering. Renee Richards played women's tennis over 40 years ago, with some success. Did that lead to a surge in men "pretending" to be transgender women in order to win tennis tournaments? Of course not. Yes, there are likely to be a more transgender women athletes at various levels as transgender people become more accepted in society, but there will never be a large number. The idea that men or boys will "fake" being transgender in order to win trophies is ridiculous.

No one thinks boys are going to fake being trans to win a trophy. That’s ridiculous and not what people are concerned about.
But There aren’t many people at the highest levels of sports.
There is only one winner in many sports. There only has to be one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All of the arguments about sports are clearly fearmongering. Renee Richards played women's tennis over 40 years ago, with some success. Did that lead to a surge in men "pretending" to be transgender women in order to win tennis tournaments? Of course not. Yes, there are likely to be a more transgender women athletes at various levels as transgender people become more accepted in society, but there will never be a large number. The idea that men or boys will "fake" being transgender in order to win trophies is ridiculous.

If there were a large number of transgender women competing in sports would your opinion be different?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about locker room and public shower? If any man claim they are a woman at a given moment, she can enter a locker room for woman in public or private swim pool and gym, be naked with her penis exposed and stare at naked women, teens, and young girls. Is there any law against a man to watch women or young girls in locker room?

If you want to go down that road, then perhaps we need to reconsider the antiquated notion of sex-segregated locker rooms and bathrooms. Why do we need segregated facilities? I’ve seen penises before, they’re not inherently scary or offensive to me. Is it that someone in the locker room could be eyeing me with sexual interest? A gay or bi woman could do that too.

If you bring your 10 years old girl to a swimming pool, will you be comfortable to have her being stared by a man with exposed penis?

Why would I be any less concerned about her being stared at by a woman with an exposed vulva? And should I not be concerned about my 10 yo son being started at by a man with an exposed penis? Perhaps the answer is to get rid of communal locker rooms entirely and just have single user and family changing stalls. Then the whole issue goes away for everyone, trans people included.

People tend to be a lot more cautious when taking kids into male changing rooms or bathrooms. You can argue all you want, but the simple fact is that 99.9% of pedophiles, and for that matter 99.9% of sexual predators, are men. Women's bathrooms are basically considered safe spaces. The very rare times there is an incident with someone planting a hidden camera or something like that, there is always a man behind it.

I don't think good parents want their child being exposed to male genitalia at all. It's why there are laws against flashing.

Female genitalia is not the same thing at all. That genitalia almost certainly does not belong to a sexual predator and it's also basically hidden from the front. There is also no indication about sexual arousal.

I do not believe that you're a parent because I don't believe someone can care so little about their children as to think that this is all no big deal. (And if you were a parent then you'd also understand that men can be parents too, which is basically the reason there ISN'T a communal family changing room - because parents don't want their girls being exposed to adult men when either one is potentially in a state of undress.)

I am a parent, and you are a bigot. I pity your children, because they’re probably grow up to be the same kind of bigot you are.

DP. Can you please clarify what portion on pp’s statement that you find to be bigoted?

Women can be sexual predators, and deliberately exposing your genitalia to children for sexual purposes is wrong no matter what kind of genitalia you have.

Of course they CAN, and of course it would be wrong. But they almost never DO that. And if they do expose themselves then it's not crystal clear to even a prepubescent child that they're sexually aroused.

A woman sitting on a bench with her legs spread wide apart staring intently at my naked child is going to be disturbing whether I can see visible evidence of her sexual arousal or not. If you would be okay with that around your children, I think that's deeply disturbing.

Has that ever happened? Let’s deal in reality here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I could care less either way, but it’s humorous to see feminists and cons on the same side for once.

I am a feminist, and I support trans women participating in women’s sports. Not all feminists are TERFs.

+1. EXACTLY

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about locker room and public shower? If any man claim they are a woman at a given moment, she can enter a locker room for woman in public or private swim pool and gym, be naked with her penis exposed and stare at naked women, teens, and young girls. Is there any law against a man to watch women or young girls in locker room?

If you want to go down that road, then perhaps we need to reconsider the antiquated notion of sex-segregated locker rooms and bathrooms. Why do we need segregated facilities? I’ve seen penises before, they’re not inherently scary or offensive to me. Is it that someone in the locker room could be eyeing me with sexual interest? A gay or bi woman could do that too.

If you bring your 10 years old girl to a swimming pool, will you be comfortable to have her being stared by a man with exposed penis?

Why would I be any less concerned about her being stared at by a woman with an exposed vulva? And should I not be concerned about my 10 yo son being started at by a man with an exposed penis? Perhaps the answer is to get rid of communal locker rooms entirely and just have single user and family changing stalls. Then the whole issue goes away for everyone, trans people included.

People tend to be a lot more cautious when taking kids into male changing rooms or bathrooms. You can argue all you want, but the simple fact is that 99.9% of pedophiles, and for that matter 99.9% of sexual predators, are men. Women's bathrooms are basically considered safe spaces. The very rare times there is an incident with someone planting a hidden camera or something like that, there is always a man behind it.

I don't think good parents want their child being exposed to male genitalia at all. It's why there are laws against flashing.

Female genitalia is not the same thing at all. That genitalia almost certainly does not belong to a sexual predator and it's also basically hidden from the front. There is also no indication about sexual arousal.

I do not believe that you're a parent because I don't believe someone can care so little about their children as to think that this is all no big deal. (And if you were a parent then you'd also understand that men can be parents too, which is basically the reason there ISN'T a communal family changing room - because parents don't want their girls being exposed to adult men when either one is potentially in a state of undress.)

I am a parent, and you are a bigot. I pity your children, because they’re probably grow up to be the same kind of bigot you are.

DP. Can you please clarify what portion on pp’s statement that you find to be bigoted?

Women can be sexual predators, and deliberately exposing your genitalia to children for sexual purposes is wrong no matter what kind of genitalia you have.

Of course they CAN, and of course it would be wrong. But they almost never DO that. And if they do expose themselves then it's not crystal clear to even a prepubescent child that they're sexually aroused.

A woman sitting on a bench with her legs spread wide apart staring intently at my naked child is going to be disturbing whether I can see visible evidence of her sexual arousal or not. If you would be okay with that around your children, I think that's deeply disturbing.

Has that ever happened? Let’s deal in reality here.

As a male victim of sexual assault by a woman, it's really nice to know how seriously you TERFs take the issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about locker room and public shower? If any man claim they are a woman at a given moment, she can enter a locker room for woman in public or private swim pool and gym, be naked with her penis exposed and stare at naked women, teens, and young girls. Is there any law against a man to watch women or young girls in locker room?

If you want to go down that road, then perhaps we need to reconsider the antiquated notion of sex-segregated locker rooms and bathrooms. Why do we need segregated facilities? I’ve seen penises before, they’re not inherently scary or offensive to me. Is it that someone in the locker room could be eyeing me with sexual interest? A gay or bi woman could do that too.

If you bring your 10 years old girl to a swimming pool, will you be comfortable to have her being stared by a man with exposed penis?

Why would I be any less concerned about her being stared at by a woman with an exposed vulva? And should I not be concerned about my 10 yo son being started at by a man with an exposed penis? Perhaps the answer is to get rid of communal locker rooms entirely and just have single user and family changing stalls. Then the whole issue goes away for everyone, trans people included.

People tend to be a lot more cautious when taking kids into male changing rooms or bathrooms. You can argue all you want, but the simple fact is that 99.9% of pedophiles, and for that matter 99.9% of sexual predators, are men. Women's bathrooms are basically considered safe spaces. The very rare times there is an incident with someone planting a hidden camera or something like that, there is always a man behind it.

I don't think good parents want their child being exposed to male genitalia at all. It's why there are laws against flashing.

Female genitalia is not the same thing at all. That genitalia almost certainly does not belong to a sexual predator and it's also basically hidden from the front. There is also no indication about sexual arousal.

I do not believe that you're a parent because I don't believe someone can care so little about their children as to think that this is all no big deal. (And if you were a parent then you'd also understand that men can be parents too, which is basically the reason there ISN'T a communal family changing room - because parents don't want their girls being exposed to adult men when either one is potentially in a state of undress.)

I am a parent, and you are a bigot. I pity your children, because they’re probably grow up to be the same kind of bigot you are.

DP. Can you please clarify what portion on pp’s statement that you find to be bigoted?

Women can be sexual predators, and deliberately exposing your genitalia to children for sexual purposes is wrong no matter what kind of genitalia you have.

Of course they CAN, and of course it would be wrong. But they almost never DO that. And if they do expose themselves then it's not crystal clear to even a prepubescent child that they're sexually aroused.

A woman sitting on a bench with her legs spread wide apart staring intently at my naked child is going to be disturbing whether I can see visible evidence of her sexual arousal or not. If you would be okay with that around your children, I think that's deeply disturbing.

Has that ever happened? Let’s deal in reality here.

As a male victim of sexual assault by a woman, it's really nice to know how seriously you TERFs take the issue.

Accepting the reality that a women would be very unlikely to sit on a bench and stare intently at a naked child as a form of sexual gratification in no way negates concern for male victims of female sexual assault. I’m sorry that happened to you, and I hope she was prosecuted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about locker room and public shower? If any man claim they are a woman at a given moment, she can enter a locker room for woman in public or private swim pool and gym, be naked with her penis exposed and stare at naked women, teens, and young girls. Is there any law against a man to watch women or young girls in locker room?

If you want to go down that road, then perhaps we need to reconsider the antiquated notion of sex-segregated locker rooms and bathrooms. Why do we need segregated facilities? I’ve seen penises before, they’re not inherently scary or offensive to me. Is it that someone in the locker room could be eyeing me with sexual interest? A gay or bi woman could do that too.

If you bring your 10 years old girl to a swimming pool, will you be comfortable to have her being stared by a man with exposed penis?

Why would I be any less concerned about her being stared at by a woman with an exposed vulva? And should I not be concerned about my 10 yo son being started at by a man with an exposed penis? Perhaps the answer is to get rid of communal locker rooms entirely and just have single user and family changing stalls. Then the whole issue goes away for everyone, trans people included.

People tend to be a lot more cautious when taking kids into male changing rooms or bathrooms. You can argue all you want, but the simple fact is that 99.9% of pedophiles, and for that matter 99.9% of sexual predators, are men. Women's bathrooms are basically considered safe spaces. The very rare times there is an incident with someone planting a hidden camera or something like that, there is always a man behind it.

I don't think good parents want their child being exposed to male genitalia at all. It's why there are laws against flashing.

Female genitalia is not the same thing at all. That genitalia almost certainly does not belong to a sexual predator and it's also basically hidden from the front. There is also no indication about sexual arousal.

I do not believe that you're a parent because I don't believe someone can care so little about their children as to think that this is all no big deal. (And if you were a parent then you'd also understand that men can be parents too, which is basically the reason there ISN'T a communal family changing room - because parents don't want their girls being exposed to adult men when either one is potentially in a state of undress.)

I am a parent, and you are a bigot. I pity your children, because they’re probably grow up to be the same kind of bigot you are.

DP. Can you please clarify what portion on pp’s statement that you find to be bigoted?

Women can be sexual predators, and deliberately exposing your genitalia to children for sexual purposes is wrong no matter what kind of genitalia you have.

Of course they CAN, and of course it would be wrong. But they almost never DO that. And if they do expose themselves then it's not crystal clear to even a prepubescent child that they're sexually aroused.

A woman sitting on a bench with her legs spread wide apart staring intently at my naked child is going to be disturbing whether I can see visible evidence of her sexual arousal or not. If you would be okay with that around your children, I think that's deeply disturbing.

Has that ever happened? Let’s deal in reality here.

As a male victim of sexual assault by a woman, it's really nice to know how seriously you TERFs take the issue.

Accepting the reality that a women would be very unlikely to sit on a bench and stare intently at a naked child as a form of sexual gratification in no way negates concern for male victims of female sexual assault. I’m sorry that happened to you, and I hope she was prosecuted.

DP. Yeah, actually it does negate concern for male victims of female sexual assault. You are basically saying that because it doesn't happen more often (which in itself can be very isolating for victims), the instances when it does happen aren't worth worrying about.

PP, I'm am so sorry she did that to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not understand your concern about bathrooms. There is nothing now to stop men from dressing as women to enter a women's restroom if they really want to, and yet this doesn't seem to be a problem in practice. As a cis-gendered woman, I have zero concerns about trans women using the restroom alongside me.

I don’t have an issue with Trans using women’s bathroom either. I’m not a lawyer but I think someone pretending to be a woman in a bathroom could be jailed if they are found doing something malicious. Not a lot of pervs do this right now because the law is not on their side. This new bill however makes it easier for pervs to do this kind of act. The issue is not trans using women’s bathroom, it’s the other people doing malicious things using this bill because it’s written too broadly, If I’m wrong with this please enlighten me, I really do hope I’m misunderstanding the text. As to sports, why can’t we just have LGBT sports?

At this moment, anyone who commits a criminal act in a women's restroom is subject to criminal penalties for that act. It doesn't matter if it is a man, a trans woman, or a cisgender woman. If it's a crime, it's a crime. This bill would not somehow take away the criminal penalties associated with committing a crime in a women's restroom.

At this moment, and for many, many years before now, transgender women have used women's restrooms without incident. People just didn't realize it was happening because they passed for cisgender women and no one thought about it. During that time, men have also had the opportunity to pose as women to enter women's restrooms if that's how they way to try to commit crimes against women, and yet that simply is not a thing that happens with any kind of regularity to warrant allowing legal discrimination against trans women. Moreover, to the extent the current state of the law does discourage men from trying to pose as women to enter women's restrooms for criminal purposes, those men most likely are just finding different ways to commit those crimes, not becoming law-abiding citizens, so the Equality Act is not likely to result in any increase in crime, except perhaps by anti-trans men who want to make a statement about this act.

Follow up question on this. So in the previous example, we used men who are disguised as wonen in women’s bathroom. Let’s remove the trans women in the discussion, they are not an issue as far as I’m concered. With the new bill, can a man( not in disguise, and not LGBTQ), say he wants to use the bathroom because he identifies as a woman?

All the Equality Act would mean is that transgender women cannot be forced to use men's restrooms on the grounds that they were born with penises. This bill would not prevent a man from pretending to be a woman in order to use the women's restroom in an otherwise appropriate manner. If that man were to do anything inappropriate while in the bathroom, they would be subject to the same criminal penalties they are now.

But again, there is nothing in practice now to prevent men from pretending to be women to use a women's restroom in an appropriate manner, unless you're advocating for guards at every restroom door who can subject people to a strip search before allowing them access.

OP here. Thank you. You make a good point.

The problem will come with the definition of a crime. Example: Joe is a voyeur and a peeping Tom and pretends to be trans to go into a woman’s restroom. A woman catches him peeking under her stall at her. She goes to complain and Joe simply says he was going to ask her is she has a tampon or toilet paper and she freaked out. Before the redefinition, it would be universally thought that Joe was not being truthful. Today, the woman is called ‘transphobic’ and Joe gets to continue his activities unabated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not understand your concern about bathrooms. There is nothing now to stop men from dressing as women to enter a women's restroom if they really want to, and yet this doesn't seem to be a problem in practice. As a cis-gendered woman, I have zero concerns about trans women using the restroom alongside me.

I don’t have an issue with Trans using women’s bathroom either. I’m not a lawyer but I think someone pretending to be a woman in a bathroom could be jailed if they are found doing something malicious. Not a lot of pervs do this right now because the law is not on their side. This new bill however makes it easier for pervs to do this kind of act. The issue is not trans using women’s bathroom, it’s the other people doing malicious things using this bill because it’s written too broadly, If I’m wrong with this please enlighten me, I really do hope I’m misunderstanding the text. As to sports, why can’t we just have LGBT sports?

At this moment, anyone who commits a criminal act in a women's restroom is subject to criminal penalties for that act. It doesn't matter if it is a man, a trans woman, or a cisgender woman. If it's a crime, it's a crime. This bill would not somehow take away the criminal penalties associated with committing a crime in a women's restroom.

At this moment, and for many, many years before now, transgender women have used women's restrooms without incident. People just didn't realize it was happening because they passed for cisgender women and no one thought about it. During that time, men have also had the opportunity to pose as women to enter women's restrooms if that's how they way to try to commit crimes against women, and yet that simply is not a thing that happens with any kind of regularity to warrant allowing legal discrimination against trans women. Moreover, to the extent the current state of the law does discourage men from trying to pose as women to enter women's restrooms for criminal purposes, those men most likely are just finding different ways to commit those crimes, not becoming law-abiding citizens, so the Equality Act is not likely to result in any increase in crime, except perhaps by anti-trans men who want to make a statement about this act.

Follow up question on this. So in the previous example, we used men who are disguised as wonen in women’s bathroom. Let’s remove the trans women in the discussion, they are not an issue as far as I’m concered. With the new bill, can a man( not in disguise, and not LGBTQ), say he wants to use the bathroom because he identifies as a woman?

All the Equality Act would mean is that transgender women cannot be forced to use men's restrooms on the grounds that they were born with penises. This bill would not prevent a man from pretending to be a woman in order to use the women's restroom in an otherwise appropriate manner. If that man were to do anything inappropriate while in the bathroom, they would be subject to the same criminal penalties they are now.

But again, there is nothing in practice now to prevent men from pretending to be women to use a women's restroom in an appropriate manner, unless you're advocating for guards at every restroom door who can subject people to a strip search before allowing them access.

OP here. Thank you. You make a good point.

The problem will come with the definition of a crime. Example: Joe is a voyeur and a peeping Tom and pretends to be trans to go into a woman’s restroom. A woman catches him peeking under her stall at her. She goes to complain and Joe simply says he was going to ask her is she has a tampon or toilet paper and she freaked out. Before the redefinition, it would be universally thought that Joe was not being truthful. Today, the woman is called ‘transphobic’ and Joe gets to continue his activities unabated.

You are clearly not a woman, because women never stick their heads under occupied stalls to ask for a tampon or toilet paper. That would be inappropriate whether it's a trans woman or a cis woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about people that don't identify as male or female?

All the young people I know who don’t identify as either are probably more into arts than sports. Start freaking out about the potential for a trans girl to take a female lead in your high school’s next play instead of your vid gender daughter.

That suggests a large sociological influence, not biological

[Anonymous]

You are clearly not a woman, because women never stick their heads under occupied stalls to ask for a tampon or toilet paper. That would be inappropriate whether it's a trans woman or a cis woman.

LOL! So true.

[Anonymous]

If you say anything long and loud enough it becomes true. We invented language and the meanings of words, so therefore can reinvent those meanings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about people that don't identify as male or female?

All the young people I know who don’t identify as either are probably more into arts than sports. Start freaking out about the potential for a trans girl to take a female lead in your high school’s next play instead of your vid gender daughter.

That suggests a large sociological influence, not biological

Also: good luck with your trans girl singing the lead female role in spring musical.
No one wants to sit through the sound of music sung entirely in falsetto.

[Anonymous]

No society in history has prospered by elevating trans people. It’s bad for the group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about people that don't identify as male or female?

All the young people I know who don’t identify as either are probably more into arts than sports. Start freaking out about the potential for a trans girl to take a female lead in your high school’s next play instead of your vid gender daughter.

That suggests a large sociological influence, not biological

Also: good luck with your trans girl singing the lead female role in spring musical.
No one wants to sit through the sound of music sung entirely in falsetto.

To the PP above who says the trans are not into sports, you might want to talk to the high school Track and Field girls from CT who lost spots in the top tier because of two Trans girls. You do realize that college scholarships are involved?

And, honestly, wasn't that kind of a sexist statement to say that they are not into sports?