Transphobic US senator was sex trafficker.

[DonnaBe]

He got 15 years. Is it enough?

deadstate.org/ex-gop-senator-who-voted-for-anti-trans-bathroom-bill-gets-15-years-for-child-sex-trafficking/

I don’t like the term “male bodied person” used by in the context of trans women. It’s too loaded.

I'm sure you don't. But it's the reason why many of us don't want to include male transpeople in female spaces - their male body and male socialisation. We don't want to exclude "anyone" just males from female spaces.

R0wantrees

Singing Plumber

That’s a good point! Thank you!

DonnaBe

It comes from being considerate, not wanting to startle women and girls.
I expect a lot of men who are plumbers / caretakers etc whistle or sing in such circumstances.
They likely won't want to startle or frighten women and girls who are not expecting to see a male in the toilets or changing rooms.

ZuttZeVootEeVro

I'm sure you don't. But it's the reason why many of us don't want to include male transpeople in female spaces - their male body and male socialisation. We don't want to exclude "anyone" just males from female spaces.

I really am trying to find common ground. That’s not helpful.

So I don’t see proactive checking as possible unless you refuse to allow anyone to work with kids because you might be day employ a child abuser. Then you don’t have services for children.

Hyperbole/reductio ad absurdam. As Bowl already said, it's about risk management, not elimination of risk. Here are some specific risk management strategies comprising safeguarding 101, all of which aim to reduce abuser infiltration and all of which are under attack at the moment.

No confidential disclosures (5Rs of safeguarding).
Avoid parental alienation if possible/no undermining of parental responsibility as mandated by the Children Act.
Multi-agency working.

Please address specifics.

Now now, Zoot, being too honest just isn't helpful.

Why does Zoot have to help DonnaBe?

(I haven't read the thread tbh)

We are all but potential assistants, apparently. This is what "finding common ground" means.

You’re shutting out the vast majority of law abiding trans people because someone who’s not trans might do something bad

Yes, correct. We shut out the vast majority of men despite most of them being law abiding because some of them might do something bad.

That’s exactly how it works. All men get a no, because unfortunately some men are a danger.

That’s how single sex spaces work.

And most men understand this, hence your singing plumber.

I'm not going to help any male get into women spaces, or try to talk themselves out of safeguarding around children and vulnerable adults.

You'll be looking a long time to find any common ground.

BowlofBableFish

Trans women are not men.

Here are some specific risk management strategies comprising safeguarding 101, all of which aim to reduce abuser infiltration and all of which are under attack at the moment.

No confidential disclosures (5Rs of safeguarding).
Avoid parental alienation if possible/no undermining of parental responsibility as mandated by the Children Act.
Multi-agency working.

These are long-established fundementals to Child Protection and Safeguarding

Two questions for you OP: both yes/no answers. Dead easy.

1. Should all men be allowed in the ladies loos?
2. Can humans change sex?

Let’s find some common ground. If the answer to either question above is yes, I’d love to hear your reasoning.

transwomen are not men

So just to get this totally straight in the interests of the common ground, you believe humans can change sex?

Can you tell me how that works please? Because I am under the impression it’s biologucally impossible

BowlofBabelFish

So just to get this totally straight in the interests of the common ground, you believe humans can change sex?

I alluded to this in a earlier post on this thread. How we categorise people is a choice we make. You seem to have chosen to categorise people by “biological sex”. If I accept your phenomenology, people can’t change sex. Frankly, it seems to have been chosen by you as a way to define trans people out of existence.

I don’t accept how you chose to categorise. And I think it’s artificial. People don’t think like that. When you meet someone, do you demand to see genitals, birth certificate or chromosome analysis before you decide which pronoun to use? Most of us don’t.

ou seem to have chosen to categorise people by “biological sex

Yes, for some things this is important, is it not? Where we differentiate by sex? There aren’t that many things, but the one that there are its extremely important. The bogs are important because women are vulnerable to sexual assault from males. So there we segregate by sex. which other criteria would one segregate by?

if I accept your phenomenonology. That sounds terribly intellectual. I think the words you’re looking for are ‘science’ or perhaps ‘reality.’?

define transpeople out of existence. That’s an interesting choice of phrase. To paraphrase a smarter man than me, are you saying that my stating the biologically correct fact that people can’t change sex actually makes people disappear in a puff of logic?

That’s a very hyperbolic attitude. Criticism of an ideology is not akin to saying it doesn’t exist.

Can you explain to me why my saying humans can’t change sex is making somebody not exist? That doesn’t make any logical sense. The person exists. Why would they not?

BowlofBabelFish

phenomenology

Sorry, just got tired of using variations on categories and categories.

It just means how we categorise things.

Why do you think we have sex segregated spaces?

It just means how we categorise things

Didn't you know that Bowl?

Can you explain to me why my saying humans can’t change sex is making somebody not exist?

What, you're not familiar with Einstein's famous Theory of Tinkerbell?

BowlofBabelFish

Can you explain to me why my saying humans can’t change sex is making somebody not exist? That doesn’t make any logical sense. The person exists. Why would they not?

You’ve chosen to categorise people in a specific way. Under your system, it’s obvious that people cannot change from being in one category to the other.

My argument is you’ve deliberately chosen an unusual categorisation so you can go on to argue that nobody can change category.

As I’ve said, how we choose to categorise is part of having free will.
In the past, people thought race and skin colour were important categories and used them to justify racism.

How we choose our categories is political. You’re categorisation is both unnatural, and an act of oppression.

It just means how we categorise things

Ok. and for a small number of services/scenarios/spaces that categorisation by sex is important. That’s why we have sex segregated toilets - men unfortunately attack women with alarming regularity. So we exclude all men. Even though not all men are a threat.

Humans cannot change sex. That’s a fact.
There are two sexes. That’s also a fact
Men as a class are a danger to women in some situations where women are vulnerable. That is also, very sadly, a fact.

So we exclude men from the women’s toilets. And prisons. And any other place or service where men can be a sexual danger to women.

Men are as a class larger, stronger and faster than women, so we have separate sports.

So there aren’t so many places when men and women need to be separate. Sitting in a lecture theatre it would make no sense to segregate by sex. But when it is needed, it’s important.

How we choose our categories is political. You’re categorisation is both unnatural, and an act of oppression.

Biological sex is not a political opinion.

In a small number of circumstances segregation by biological sex is appropriate and needed for safety.

Can you explain how saying that there are men and women, men can be a danger to women and that no one can change sex is oppression? That makes no sense to me and I’m interested in hearing how you reach that conclusion. It sounds very right on but there’s no logical or fact behind it.

Sex IS a fact. It’s not comparable to racial segregation and frankly, comparing the need of women to be safe from assault to apartheid is a tad disrespectful.

My argument is you’ve deliberately chosen an unusual categorisation so you can go on to argue that nobody can change category.

Unusual? Surely separating humans into XX and XY categories is the most basic of categorizations?