No, he said confined spaces where women are alone. There are plenty of those beyond washrooms. Should all be gender segregated? I mean, the beer cooler at the liquour store. High risk zone. Women are probably terrified of walking in there. To protect them, we need a women only beer cooler.
Let’s remind. MLA said, “scared $hitless of being raped on a minute-by-minute basis when in public.” Not much room for nuance.
^ Truth. I agree with Ohai. MLA says women live in endless terror at the thought of being alone with a man. So the solution to this, if true, is to gender segregate everything. I don’t see why a bathroom is more dangerous than a beer cooler.
an obvious exxageration that was tempered by subsequent statements. take the word “dollar sign hitless” out and it doesn’t seem that extreme of a statement. they are always thinking of their safety being compromised and if they have to enter uncomfortable situation like peeing or change one’s tampon with dudes outside the stall talking about how they just rammed some chick, they either avoid or have anxiety.
my question stands. are you comfortable with your wife being in a washroom alone with a drug addict or rapist? i’m not. are you okay with your wife being in a mall hallway with a drug addict or rapist? probably.
Not really. Those people should be in jail. I’m not ok with my wife being alone with criminals, of course not. But again that applies to many many many situations beyond a washroom. Also note: the rapist could just disregard the female sign on the door.
you’re tasking your wife to immediately realize the difference between a man and a man who will threaten her. seeing any man in a women’s washroom would create immediate alarm in today’s age. she’d scream for help if he took 1 step toward her. seeing a man in a women’s washroom when a man is a womens washroom was normal, either via co-ed or sheman washrooms, would mean your wife would have to discern the threat level of every man in the washroom at all times. stressful no?
Geo, you’re just side stepping at this point (also, that was Ghibli and not Ohai you were refering to earlier I think unless one of us is mis-understanding Ohai’s post - could be me).
It’s obvious the point MLA is making and instead of addressing it in any logical way you’re falling back on the continued fallacy of “x deterrent may not work, so ergo, no deterrent is best” and trying to twist it into clearly not equivalent scenarios.
He’s laying out a pretty logical chain of reasoning that others have mentioned has some validity. I’m just saying I keep waiting for a semi-legitimate response and thought I’d try to help.
Ohai was pointing towards the fact that Ohai softened his stance indicating what was clearly hyperbole. Now that we can all agree he was not speaking literally (including MLA) can we all address the actual point instead of nitpicking? I mean, really actually address it by indicating some level of consideration.
Not true. There is no real deterrent. There are plenty of examples of male/female interaction as isolated, or more isolated, than a bathroom that we don’t gender segregate. I never said no deterrent is best. I’m saying his proposed deterrent is nonsense and imposes a social cost on a vulnerable minority that could be avoided with minimal safety impact. It’s so ridiculous that you guys think posting a pic of a woman in a skirt on a bathroom door makes it a safe zone. So ridiculous. Or banning men from entering. Yes, because rapists will obey that regulation. Or that a man couldn’t wear a disguise to go in and wait. Or whatever. You’re essentially making all the dumb arguments behind gun control that are nullified by the simple fact that criminals don’t care about silly regulations. A murder won’t properly register his firearm. A rapist doesn’t care that it’s a woman’s bathroom. That’s a logical argument. And MLA’s response is women are terrified ever minute of the day and we owe them a safe zone established by posting a little picture on the door. OK.
But I support gun control. I don’t think just anybody should be able to buy a gun. I think laws do matter, particularly since the majority of rapes and gun violence are not pre-meditated. So cutting down on high risk encounters helps significantly.
We’ll agree to disagree then, because we have very different views on the impact of laws. I think the sign on the door (and the illegality of being there) serves as a deterrent that prevents encounters that could lead to more serious offenses.
If anything, your response comes off as very callous and condescending to women which live with a 20% chance of being raped in their lifetime (~30 million female victims in the US population) in favor of the concerns of 0.7 million transgender individuals. Some of whom may share the same concerns.
the only issue with your “criminals will ignore everything” argument is that it could be used against every “let’s police this” argument ever. because it’s not specific to this topic, it’s a very weak argument. why post speed limits? criminals are going to violate. why lock doors to public buildings at night? criminals will enter anyway. should we make anything illegal? it’s pointless because criminals/baddies will do the criminal/bad thing anyway. most everything we mandate is a guideline and deterrent for behaviour, it’s not a solution.
allowing men into a female washroom, trans or not, is a threat to a woman’s ability to get her guard up on time wrt to blatant criminals and invites opportunity for assault or ‘he said she said’ incidents with less blatant criminals. there is nothing to fix. out anatomy tells us where we go potty.
I don’t think gender based restrooms exist to prevent raping. It’s more of a modesty thing.
IF I were comfortable with the idea that this would not significantly alter sexual assault risks and associated comfort for the female population (owing to non-trans abuse of the law) then I would definitely switch my stance. I could be wrong on the whole risk picture, who knows.
As it stands, I see post op as a non-issue since I think they’re technically the sex they identify with at that point.
Or you’re just grossly overestimating the risks to suit your case.
And yes, I did read the responses, 2 separate posts on the 1st page dismissing gender dysphorhia out of hand. granted, 1 was by Samcrybaby and we’re all doing a pretty good job of just ignoring that douche.
Haven’t read the whole thread so not taking any sides, but here are my two cents.
Women are not living in a constant fear of rape. That’s a rather silly claim to make. Neither do we perceive every single male we encounter in everyday life as a threat.
There are certain places/situations that do “feel” (and can be) dangerous and make us more aware of our own vulnerability and possibility of being raped. Examples (already mentioned) would be a dark lonely street, an empty bar bathroom (separated by sex and all) located on another floor and isolated from the rest of the place, sharing an elevator with a guy in smaller non-doorman building etc
That said letting transgender people using the female bathrooms imo does NOT automatically create that situation.
Being ALONE in (any) confined and isolated place with a stranger male is what increases the possibility of rape, not the type of place. The emty sex segregated bathroom will always be more dangerous than any crowded coed one.
Btw I once was in a completely coed bathroom in a hotel (by the pool) and while it did feel somewhat unusual, it definitely didn’t feel dangerous at all because it was packed!
^The issue debated in the last few pages is whether non-transgender men abusing the legal right to claim they identify as women and thus use the women’s bathroom for pervy reasons would create the risk (not the transgendered themselves).
In those cases, based on what you said having a pretty scruffy looking male follow you into an empty bathroom seems like it would create a highly uncomfortable situation based on your description.
I think her point is the creepy scruffy male following her anywhere would be unsettling, whether it’s a woman’s bathroom or a co-ed one. And the fact that the co-ed one would be fact get 2x as much traffic may be a risk mitigation.
Fair enough. I’m still against it, I just think it’s rife for abuse, particularly w/r/t locker rooms and remote bathrooms.
That being said, I’m marginally less opposed than before and I think both sides at least see the other side’s perspective for what it’s worth.
so in all of the places where there are two washrooms, they’re going to simply get rid of one so that there are 1/2 of the washroom facilities as before? co-ed doesn’t equal 2x volume. it still means high volume in high traffic areas and low volume in low traffic areas.
Also, she’s purposely mischaracterizing the outcome as universally Coed, which is not the situation that was presented to her. I was clearly talking about straight creeps abusing the system and going into the women’s bathroom under false pretense (ie claiming a different gender identification that particular day). So both bathrooms still exist, nothing has changed, you just have creeps that feel they can legally get by with abusing the system. Even if this doesn’t result in a rape per se, there have been reported cases in coed stalls of guys sticking a camera phone over the top and walking out (in CANADA no less!).
KRNYC and Co have been pedantically sidestepping the concern directly each time it’s raised, which is mostly why my view is still unchanged. That being said, I just don’t care anymore. I think they get what I’m really pointing towards but don’t want to admit it in the debate, I get what they’re saying. I could potentially be mistaken on this (we’re all operating on hypotheticals here) and we’ll just have to see how this whole thing plays out.